


























































THE PASSION WEEK 




I 


GH6 PflSSlOll 

J3 ^ 


DAY BY DAY 

A Handbook for Ministers , Laymen and Study Groups 


By 

WALTER BUNDY 

DePauw University 



Willett, Clark & Colby 

Chicago : 440 South Dearborn Street 
New York : 200 FifthAvenue 
1930 




to. 


Copyright 1950 hy 3 * g 

WILLETT, CLARK & COLBY 

Manufactured in The U. S. A. by The Plimpton Press 
Norwood, Mass.-La Porte, Ind. 



The Bible text used in this volume is taken from the Ameri¬ 
can Standard Version of the Revised Bible, copyright, 1929, 
by the International Council of Religious Education, and 
used by permission. 

f 


/ 




APR 14 MO 

©C1& 21831 









RAYMOND 

in memoriam 














I 


* 











































V* 




























































































































































i 
















































































































4 
















































































































CONTENTS 


PREFACE 

INTRODUCTION • i 
I . PALM SUNDAY • 13 

II . MONDAY • 37 

III . TUESDAY • 53 
IV . WEDNESDAY • 89 

V. THURSDAY • m 

VI . GOOD FRIDAY • 117 

Scene I. At the Table 

VII . GOOD FRIDAY • 141 

Scene II. Gethsemane 

VIII . GOOD FRIDAY .155 

Scene III . The Jewish Trial 

IX . GOOD FRIDAY . 173 

Scene IV. The Roman Trial 

X . GOOD FRIDAY. 191 

Scene V. The Crucifixion 

EPILOGUE • xi 5 

The Easter Adversative 
























































\ 












































It p 

■ 















■ 












































































































































PREFACE 


HIS book is not intended as a substitute for a study 
of the New Testament story of the passion week. On the 
contrary, its plan and purpose is to promote an actual 
study of the Gospel passages concerned. It offers itself 
simply as a first handbook to guide the general reader in 
such study. At the beginning of each chapter there is a 
clear and orderly outline of the Gospel passages which 
should be read and studied in connection with the running 
comments here presented. 

This book does not pretend to state or to solve the 
critical problems that arise out of the Gospel accounts of 
the passion week. The professional student is acquainted 
with the scholarly contributions in this field; he knows 
the problems and has perhaps his own solutions. Many 
matters, major and minor, of interest to the critical stu¬ 
dent are here simply passed over. The general reader is 
not interested in such academic matters, but he may find 
profit in a simpler study such as this handbook seeks to 
offer. 

The interest here does not center in any of the many 
theological interpretations of the words and incidents in 
the closing scenes and days. Its quest of meanings is more 
simple — namely, to apprehend and appreciate the hu- 


The Passion Week 


man, dramatic and religious elements that have gone into 
the making of the story. The passion narrative is a very 
human story; it brings a particular life to a close. The 
whole account has its dramatic qualities; it is moving, en¬ 
gaging, full of action and interest, tense in its emotions 
and tragic in its events. The drama is religious: a prophet 
of God and his kingdom, a holy city, a sacred festival, a 
pious pilgrimage, devout people, priestly opponents. In 
it we seek very simply for a clear comprehension of the 
actual human tragedy that was enacted in Jerusalem 
around 30 a.d. 

w. E. B. 


GREENCASTLE, INDIANA 
MARCH I, I93O 





THE PASSION WEEK 
































































































































I 

























































































I 


























































































INTRODUCTION 


IP ROM the very beginnings of Christianity no section 
of the story of Jesus has commanded so much and such 
intense interest as the passion week. There is something 
growing and gripping in the account of the Jerusalem 
events which climax in Jesus’ suffering and death. This 
is clear in the letters of Paul whose thought centers on the 
dramatic outcome rather than on what preceded and led 
up to it. Paul may have been thoroughly familiar with 
other sections of the story of Jesus — the Sermon on the 
Mount, the Beatitudes, the Lord’s Prayer, the Golden Rule, 
the parables, the Galilean conflicts, the ministry of healing 
— he probably was, but he never makes specific reference 
to any of them. His Christian hope and faith center upon 
the cross and the resurrection, upon the religious signifi¬ 
cance which he and the earliest Christians generally have 
discovered in them. From the first century down to the 
present these two things, the cross and the resurrection, 
have constituted the paradoxical poles of Christian piety. 

This predominant interest in the closing days and 
scenes is equally clear in the Gospels themselves. Five of 
the fifteen chapters (n-15) which Mark devotes to the 
public life of Jesus deal with the events of the passion week 


1 


The Passion Week 

— approximately one third of his Gospel. Luke’s account 
of these last days is fully as extensive as that of Mark. The 
passion narratives of Matthew and the Fourth Gospel are 
even more elaborate. 

In our study of the passion week, however, we may 
not sever it entirely from what has gone before, for it is a 
natural and integral part of the whole. Although we can¬ 
not trace exactly all the chronological bonds and causal 
connections that lead up to it, nevertheless the passion 
week is simply the climax of the drama that began in 
Galilee and that culminated in Jerusalem. The passion 
week must be regarded as the natural culmination of Jesus’ 
religious life and mission. The Jesus who dies in the Holy 
City is the same Jesus that wrought and taught in Gali¬ 
lee. There is really no substantial change in him or in 
what he seeks to accomplish. The Jerusalem message is 
not altered in theme; it is the same imminent kingdom 
of God. Only the tone of his utterances becomes a bit 
sharper — a perfectly natural thing in view of the circum¬ 
stances of bitter opposition and the prospect of impend¬ 
ing catastrophe. His original religious faith and feeling, 
hope and outlook, hold him fast to the very end. 

The Jerusalem days with their dramatic developments 
enrich and enhance much that has gone before. In Jeru¬ 
salem we see that Jesus is ready to die, and does die, for 
the cause of God of which he has been and is the cham¬ 
pion. In the last scenes he makes final declarations of the 
faith that has held him from the first. A new and glorious 

2 




Introduction 


light falls over his personality and character. We realize 
fully the utter seriousness with which Jesus takes the 
things he has been teaching about what matters most in 
the sight of God and in the lives of men — faith, loyalty, 
love, obedience, hope, forgiveness, confidence and trust in 
adversity. We learn that for him all these things are more 
than moral and religious maxims. The Galilean teachings 
on prayer, for example, take on a new and deeper meaning 
when in Gethsemane and on the cross we hear Jesus pray¬ 
ing and petitioning God in the bitterest hours of his life. 


Mark’s story of Jesus’ public activity, which furnishes 
the framework for the more elaborate accounts of Mat¬ 
thew and Luke, is relatively simple in its plan and develop¬ 
ment. Jesus’ public life falls into two principal periods 
according to the scene in which he works — the Galilean 
period and the Judean period. Jesus begins his work in 
Galilee, the northern province of Palestine, and his public 
life ends with his death in Jerusalem. Thus there is just 
one chief shift in the scene of the story — from Galilee to 
Jerusalem. 

The Galilean Period consumes by far the greater 
portion of Jesus’ time in public — a number of months, ap¬ 
proximately a year. The principal center of activity is the 
Sea of Galilee, especially its northwestern shore with head¬ 
quarters in Capernaum. No sharp division can be made 
within the Galilean story, but Mark 7:24 seems to bring 

3 


The Passion Week 

a turning-point. What precedes (i 12-7123) may be called 
the earlier Galilean days; what follows (7:24-9:50), the 
later Galilean days. 

The earlier Galilean days are filled with great public¬ 
ity and popularity. Almost constantly Jesus is surrounded 
by great multitudes eager to hear his words or to witness 
his cures of the sick and afflicted. In this period we find 
conflicts with the religious authorities, especially the Phari¬ 
sees. The issues have to do with Jesus’ teaching and con¬ 
duct, his failure to conform to tradition and convention in 
both. These conflicts are not serious in the sense that Jesus’ 
life is endangered. During this period, too, we get the first 
hint of pressing personal problems which Jesus faces; they 
remain, however, more in the background. In the fore¬ 
ground of Jesus’ thought and work is his message and mis¬ 
sion as the called and commissioned prophet of the king¬ 
dom of God. He spends these earlier Galilean days in the 
presence of a large public, announcing his great message. 
The majority of his cures fall in this early period. 

The later Galilean days open with Jesus taking an un¬ 
expected step — the journey to the north beyond the bor¬ 
ders of his native land (Mark 7:24-30). During this pe¬ 
riod Jesus is still popular with the multitudes; he is still 
opposed by the Pharisees. He still announces his public 
message and effects some cures. But these outstanding fea¬ 
tures of the earlier Galilean days fall more into the back¬ 
ground. There is less publicity. Jesus often seeks to avoid 
the multitudes or to escape them entirely. He is more in 

4 


Introduction 


retirement, more alone with the twelve. The most impor¬ 
tant of his utterances are reserved for them in private. It 
is a period of restlessness with Jesus almost constantly on 
the move — to the region of Tyre and Sidon, to Mount 
Hermon, back and forth across the Sea of Galilee. During 
these last days in the northern province Jesus’ personal 
problems come more to the front. Toward the close, if 
we may trust the representation of the first three Gospels, 
Jesus’ thought develops out into a new direction; his words 
to the twelve in private take on a new tragic tone; for the 
first time the thought of a fatal outcome seems to lodge 
itself in his mind, yet with the approach of the Passover 
festival he determines to go up to the Holy City. 

The Judean Period might just as well be called the 
Jerusalem period for, with the exception of the things said 
and done on the way to the Holy City (Mark io), all else 
transpires in Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity. This 
period is very brief in comparison with the Galilean pe¬ 
riod. It includes at most only the last few weeks of Jesus’ 
life — the time necessary for the journey to Jerusalem and 
the six brief days of the passion week. During these last 
weeks Jesus continues to announce his message of the 
imminent kingdom. It, too, is a period of continued 
popularity with the people. In Jerusalem, however, Jesus 
strikes a new, more powerful and bitter opposition — the 
chief priests who oppose him for very different reasons 
than did the Pharisees in Galilee. They bring about Jesus’ 
death within less than a week. During this period the 

5 


The Passion Week 

former ministry of healing is all but gone. According to 
Mark, there is just one cure on the way to the Holy City, 
the blind man at the gates of Jericho, and no cures in Jeru¬ 
salem itself. Jesus’ personal problems now become strug¬ 
gles of soul; their nature is clearer than ever, and they 
reach their climax in Gethsemane. In Mark, Jesus dies in 
the throes of terrific inner conflict with a cry of distress, a 
prayer of protest, on his lips. 

The Judean period opens with the journey to Jeru¬ 
salem. It is an eventful journey; Mark devotes the whole 
of chapter ten to the account of it. Why did Jesus go to 
Jerusalem ? Why did he venture upon this fatal step ? 

The Gospel writers very clearly present Jesus’ purpose 
in the light of the outcome: he went to Jerusalem to die 
(Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32). Besides these formal forecasts 
of death ahead, other utterances of Jesus during the jour¬ 
ney have a tragic note. There is the passion path for the 
disciples, renunciation of this world in view of rewards 
in the new order to come, the words on service and sacri¬ 
fice. But this tragic note seems to have come from later 
Christian sentiment which interpreted Jesus’ purpose in 
the light of the fact that the journey did result in his 
death. Further, this interpretation of Jesus’ purpose had a 
spontaneous source in the religious meaning of the cross 
and the early Christian understanding of the divine plan 
of which it was the culmination. Jesus may have ap¬ 
proached the Holy City with the thought of a fatal out¬ 
come in his mind, for in coming to Jerusalem he was enter- 

6 





Introduction 


ing the stronghold of an organized religion that had never 
been friendly to the prophets from the provinces. But 
there is no reason to suppose that the Jerusalem authorities 
were prepared for his coming or that they were on the 
lookout for him (John 7:11; n '. 56 - 57 ). There is no indi¬ 
cation that Jesus anticipated their bitter hostility. In the 
first days of the passion week the depressed mood that 
dominates the words on the way to Jerusalem fails to ap¬ 
pear. Further, the conflict that resulted in his death did 
not antedate his appearance at the festival. It seems to 
have originated and matured on Jerusalem ground. 

Others think that Jesus went to Jerusalem to continue 
the same sort of work that he had been doing in Galilee. 
It marked simply a shift in the scene of his ministry. 
There is considerable basis for this idea in the passion story 
itself. Once he is in the Holy City, Jesus speaks and acts 
with the old confidence and assurance, announcing his 
message of the kingdom, disputing with his opponents, 
all the while carried along by the enthusiasm of the people 
for what he says and does. 

There seems to be, however, a more simple and natu¬ 
ral reason for the journey to the Holy City. The passion 
story itself seems to disclose it. Jesus goes up at the time 
of the Passover; it is prepared for him; he says that he has 
anticipated it with great desire, and on the last night he 
celebrates it with his chosen group. Whether any special 
thing figured in Jesus’ actual motives — death or a con¬ 
tinuation of his work — we have no way of knowing. But 

7 


The Passion Week 

in its simplest sense the journey seems to have been a pil¬ 
grimage to the Passover, and Jesus, like thousands of pious 
Jews, is a pilgrim to the most sacred of his people’s re¬ 
ligious festivals. The journey climaxes in the Bethany 
demonstration — an ovation, it seems, by the Galilean 
Passover pilgrims in his honor. 

The passion week itself includes only six days — Sun¬ 
day to Friday. This is the extent of Jesus’ Jerusalem min¬ 
istry in the first three Gospels — an amazingly short space 
of time. But in spite of its brevity the Gospel writers treat 
it with equally surprising fulness and detail. The first 
three days (Sunday, Monday, Tuesday) are spent in pub¬ 
lic; the second three days are in private (Wednesday, 
Thursday, Friday), the closing scenes becoming public 
with Jesus no longer a free but condemned man. 

The account of this last week is really a drama. There 
is a general gist and plot running through the whole: on 
Palm Sunday comes the Bethany demonstration; on Mon¬ 
day, the cleansing of the temple; on Tuesday, the conflicts 
and discourses; on Wednesday, the anointing in Bethany 
and Judas’ betrayal; on Thursday, the preparation of the 
Passover; on the Jewish Friday, beginning with our 
Thursday evening, the supper scene, the Gethsemane 
stru ggl e , the arrest, trials and crucifixion. The story is 
told with remarkable simplicity and dignity. There is 
throughout a delicateness of sentiment, a fascinating fine¬ 
ness of feeling; a deep pathos pervades the whole. 

Only in Mark can we follow Jesus day by day. Mat- 


Introduction 


thew and Luke do not make a careful division into days 
in each case. An event that Mark assigns to a particular 
day Matthew or Luke, or both, may include on another or 
on no special day. In all of the first three Gospels the pas¬ 
sion week opens with Jesus’ arrival in the Holy City and 
the Bethany demonstration. Mark (n :i) brings this first 
day to a definite close in n :n. He notes the beginning of 
the second day in 11:12; of the third in 11:20; of the 
fourth in 14:1; of the fifth in 14:12; and the sixth in 14:17. 
Matthew, like Mark, brings the first day (21:1) to a 
definite close in 21 :i7 and the beginning of the second day 
he notes in 21:18. The second and third days (21:18-25: 
46) he does not separate the one from the other. The 
fourth day opens with 26:1-2; the fifth with 26:17; 
sixth with 26:20. In his parallels to Mark’s first three days 
Luke (19:29-2136) notes no beginnings or endings of par¬ 
ticular days; in 21:37-38 he characterizes the Jerusalem 
activity thus far as teaching every day in the temple with 
the nights spent outside the city on the Mount of Olivet. 
Luke’s last three days are clear although he is not number¬ 
ing them. In Luke 22:1 we are parallel with the begin¬ 
ning of Mark’s fourth day; in 22:7 with the fifth; and in 
22:14 with the sixth. In the Fourth Gospel the calendar 
of the passion week disappears entirely. In 12:1 we are 
six days before the Passover; in 12:13 we are on the mor¬ 
row; and in 13:1 on the last night of Jesus’ life. 

A number of scholars are skeptical about Mark’s clear- 
cut division into six days. They find his calendar scheme 

9 


The Passion Week 

to be a superficial and artificial arrangement; for them, it 
appears as a later and secondary addition forced upon the 
materials. The fact that Luke shows no interest in a defi¬ 
nite chronology, they think, demonstrates this. They find 
the Jerusalem period too short, a total of six days with only 
three in public, and these far too crowded. 

Whether Mark’s chronological scheme has any histor¬ 
ical value we cannot say definitely. We may not be sure 
of particular incidents falling on particular days. We may 
not be sure even that all the things reported as a part of 
the passion week actually belonged to it. The anointing 
of Jesus is a striking example. Matthew and Mark assign 
it to Wednesday of this last week, but Luke includes it as 
a part of his Galilean story (7:36-50). In the Fourth Gos¬ 
pel it precedes the Passover by six days (12:1-8) instead of 
by two days as in Matthew and Mark. Even the date of 
Jesus’ death is uncertain. In the midst of all sorts of his¬ 
torical difficulties and other improbabilities the first three 
Gospels have Jesus die on the most sacred feast day in the 
Jewish calendar, on the first day of the feast of unleavened 
bread — the fifteenth of the Jewish month of Nisan. The 
Fourth Gospel, however, dates Jesus’ death twenty-four 
hours earlier, on the fourteenth of Nisan — a date that is 
not burdened with all the difficulties and improbabilities 
that beset the fifteenth. 

All of these problems admit of a great deal of scholarly 
speculation, but as yet there is no definite solution. About 
the best we can do is to take the conflicting chronology as 


10 


Introduction 


we find it, noting all along the problems that confront it. 
The most crowded day of the six is Tuesday. Otherwise, 
the problem has to do not so much with the crowded char¬ 
acter of the days as with such important and far-reaching 
events falling within the brief space of six days. 

The question of the general historical reliability of the 
Gospel reports of the passion week is not essentially differ¬ 
ent from the bearing this question has on the whole of the 
Gospel story. There are fewer traces perhaps of personal 
memory than appear at certain points in the Galilean ac¬ 
count. The eyewitness theory for these closing scenes 
must be definitely abandoned sooner or later, for the 
marks of personal reminiscence have been effaced in a 
wide and vigorous circulation. Those fresh, first-hand 
features that suggest actual participation in the events are 
missing. 

In the passion story we have to do with a social or 
group product, the story as commonly known and gener¬ 
ally circulated among the early Christian communities. 
At no point in the Gospel story are the primitive Christian 
interests and interpretations more prominent. The whole 
is conceived and presented from the community point of 
view; not a few passages reflect very clearly primitive 
Christian cult and practices. Certain features and phases 
of the story appear as secondary and acquired. There are 
some legendary accretions. Very seldom do we find mat¬ 
ter wholly free from later Christian revision. 

Our general historical orientation for the study of the 


ii 


The Passion Week 

passion week is the same that holds for the study of the life 
of Jesus as a whole. Jesus is a Jewish prophet working 
among his Jewish contemporaries on Jewish soil. We 
must think, then, of the passion week in Jewish terms, just 
as Jewish as possible. The whole of the passion week, 
with its drama and its tragedy, develops around a Jewish 
festival and its celebration. Jesus, his disciples and the 
Galilean crowds generally are pilgrims to the Passover. 
The scene and setting, the actors in the story, the issues in¬ 
volved — all are Jewish . 1 

1 For highly valuable comments on the passion week from the modern Jewish 
point of view, liberal and orthodox, see: Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels (2d 
edition, New York: Macmillan, 1927); Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (New 
York: Macmillan, 1925). An ultra-liberal Jewish picture of Jesus is Enelow’s 
A Jewish View of Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1920). 


CHAPTER I 


PALM SUNDAY 
















vo 


o 




*n 

*n 


• # 


fn 



on 

c* 







s 

kJ 
















<D 

3 

4 


OO O Tt* 

T f f 

On On h 

cl ro 't 

• • 

ON 


VO 

« f 

in ji 
in 

Tt" 


U< 

Cd 


cd 




>H 

< 

Q 

£ 

5 

CO 


4 

Oi 


^ On 

js r 


cd 




ci ,Q 

G 

O 


CO 


• O cl Jh tj- i!f 

• m h <s 


<l> 


vo 

M 

in 



• • 

• • 

• • 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

V 


• 

• 

• 



• • 


• 

• 

"Oh 


• 







g 





• a 




<u 





• *H 

• jy 




H 


; 



• 03 




<L> 





. CO 

• G 
. u» 




~G 

4-> 

CO 




a 

Ui 

4-> 

CO 

G 

o 

a 

<u 

Q 


co 

<U 

<D 

co 

• *-h 
Vh 

03 

~G 

&H 

<u 

43 


03 

Ph 

<u 

JG 


u 

*o 

X 

v 

~G 


co 

G 

O 

• *H 
4-> 

03 

> 

Vh 

<D 

CO 

X) 

o 


« G 

o • «H 

l£«-0 

S oj 

b 

<u G 

H U 

<u <U 

•s a 

^ J3 

O 1—1 


CO 

<u 

• H 

Vh 

Gh 

*-W 

<u >> 
[G G 
7 ^ cd 

O ^ 

4-» 

<U OJ 

~G pq 


G 

03 

43 


CO 

<U 


JJ 

s 

<U 

H 


co 

<u 


>> H 

v G 

QJ • *H 

■"S 

Oh V-< 

— o o b 

CJ *-h Vh G -t - ,—. 

PQ o. Ph w a U PQ 

■£] 

o<uoi> 4 -><uooqj 

G ^3 G G JG ~G JG ~G 

hHHHnhHhh 


bo^ 

a a 

55 03 

G *T3 
o3 £ 
<L> .3 


G 

1-4 

G 

a s 

Ph 


CO 

►H 

I 

n 


ON | 

*-» m 


(S M 


G 

o 


»H <N 

S G 

43 

O o 


<33 .Q 









M CS 


CO in VO l^N OO ON 























T 

JL HE first day of the passion week is set off clearly in 
both Matthew (21:1-17) an< 3 Mark (11:1-11). In 11:11 
Mark tells us that it is evening and that Jesus returns to 
Bethany with the twelve. Matthew (21:17) notes the re¬ 
turn to Bethany and in 21:18 we are on the morning of the 
second day. Luke, however, does not note the close of 
the first day nor the beginning of the second. Neverthe¬ 
less, he seems to depict the events in 19:29-46 as following 
in rapid succession and without intervening nights or re¬ 
treats from the city. Certainly Luke presents the cleans¬ 
ing as coming on the first day on the first visit to the 
temple. 

A glance at the outline of events for this first day (op¬ 
posite page) shows that it is considerably more eventful in 
Matthew and Luke than it is in Mark. This is due to the 
fact that the first and third Evangelists each has his own 
special materials which he assigns to this day. Further, 
both report the cleansing of the temple on Palm Sunday 
which, in Mark, is the principal event of the second day. 

1. THE BETHANY DEMONSTRATION. 

Matthew 21:1-9. Mar\ 11:1-10. Lu{e 19:29-38. 

Palm Sunday opens in all of the first three Gospels 
with one and the same incident — the Bethany demonstra- 

15 


The Passion Week 

tion. It is the principal event of the day, the one from 
which it gets its name, and the only one which all three 
writers agree in assigning to this particular day. The date 
of the Bethany demonstration is not so clear in the Fourth 
Gospel (12:12-19). ^ comes on the day following (12: 
12) the anointing in Bethany (12:1-8) which is dated as 
six days before the Passover. 

In the first three Gospels the Bethany demonstration is 
vitally associated with what precedes. It is the climax of 
the eventful journey to Jerusalem. 1 Jesus and his disciples 
have come up from Galilee by the way of Jericho for the 
first and only visit to the Holy City during his public 
career. They are approaching the Mount of Olives over 
which (II Samuel 15:30) the road from Jericho to Jeru¬ 
salem led and from which the pilgrims were wont to catch 
the first view of Zion and its sacred walls. 

In the Fourth Gospel, however, the Bethany demon¬ 
stration is not associated with a journey from Galilee to the 
Holy City. Although the Fourth Evangelist has Jesus go 
up from Galilee to Jerusalem three different times (2:13; 
5:1; 7:10) during his public life, there is no eventful jour¬ 
ney to the Holy City in his account, no pilgrimage cul¬ 
minating in the ovation on the Mount of Olives. Accord¬ 
ing to the Fourth Gospel Jesus came out from the Holy 
City to Bethany only the day before (12:1), and he is leav¬ 
ing Bethany for the Holy City again when the demonstra¬ 
tion takes place (12:12). 

1 Matt. 19-20; Mark io; Luke 9:51-19:28. 
l6 


Palm Sunday 


The account opens in the first three Gospels with Jesus 
nearing the Holy City, a dramatic moment in the experi¬ 
ence of any pilgrim, with the villages of Bethphage and 
Bethany just ahead. According to all three, too, he sends 
two of his disciples to the villages ahead to fetch a colt. 
It is at this point that Matthew makes his principal de¬ 
parture from the accounts of Mark and Luke. 

Matthew gives Jesus’ instructions for the finding and 
bringing of the colt, but in Mark and Luke his words are 
not of the nature of instructions but of detailed predictions 
concerning what the disciples will find, what will be said 
to them and what they in turn shall reply. Thus, Mark 
and Luke introduce a mysterious, miraculous element and 
both emphasize the fact that the disciples found every¬ 
thing just as Jesus had said that they would — a miracle 
of omniscience. 

Matthew, however, eliminates this miraculous ele¬ 
ment. He omits the detailed fulfilment of the predictions 
in Mark n 15-6. Instead, he emphasizes the fact that “ the 
disciples went and did even as Jesus appointed them.” 
(Matt. 21:6.) Thus, the account of the incident in the first 
Gospel becomes less mysterious and baffling. Matthew 
has another interest in this preliminary stage not evident 
in Mark or Luke: the finding of the colt is a fulfilment of 
Old Testament prophecy — Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 
9:9. 

This preliminary stage in the Bethany incident leaves 
an unfavorable impression. How can Jesus know and pre- 

17 


The Passion Week 

diet all of these complicated details when, according to all 
of the first three Gospels, this is his first visit to Jerusalem 
during his public career ? In the Fourth Gospel, in which 
Jesus has been almost constantly in and about Jerusalem 
and only the day before has come out to Bethany, 
this sending for the colt with specific instructions 
would not be surprising. But the Fourth Evangelist 
omits this preliminary stage entirely and has Jesus him¬ 
self find the colt (12:14), however, only after the demon¬ 
stration has taken place (12:12-13)—a sort of anti¬ 
climax. 

All of the first three Gospels leave with us the impres¬ 
sion that Jesus himself sets the stage for the Bethany dem¬ 
onstration. He conceives it, plans it and enlists two of 
his disciples in its preparation. A prompt skepticism, based 
on all that we know of Jesus, confronts this clear impres¬ 
sion coming straight from the accounts as they now stand. 
We cannot fit such a picture and purpose into the total 
. temper of his personality. It is difficult to imagine Jesus 
staging anything, particularly a demonstration in his own 
honor. 

The fetching of the colt appears to be secondary and ac¬ 
quired, a later outgrowth of the story that would enhance 
the miraculous element. The original demonstration was 
unplanned, unprepared, by Jesus or others. It was one of 
those things that are born of the moment, that cannot be 
foreseen. A definite plan in advance would contradict . 
the spontaneous nature of the ovation that follows. The 
18 



Palm Sunday 


original account was probably more simple and may have 
read somewhat as follows: 

“And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, unto 
Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, . . . they 
found a colt (at the door without in the open street); and 
they loose him. . . . And they bring the colt unto Jesus, 
and cast on him their garments; and he sat upon him. 
And many spread their garments upon the way; and 
others branches, which they had cut from the fields. And 
they that went before, and they that followed, cried, Ho¬ 
sanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: 
Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the \ingdom of our 
father David: Hosanna in the highest.” 

This more simple account preserves better what must 
have been the original spontaneous character of the inci¬ 
dent. The fetching of the colt appears as a later embellish¬ 
ment derived perhaps from a subsequent Markan incident 
— the preparation of the Passover. 2 The two preparations 
are really parallel companion pieces, not only in their mys¬ 
terious character but in their details. 

In the demonstration itself we get the impression of a 
triumphal procession. Matthew (21:9) and Mark (11:9) 
seem to have a formation in mind — Jesus mounted in the 
center of the column, some of the crowd going before 
him, others following. In Luke the demonstration goes 

2 Matt. 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13. 


J 9 


The Passion Week 

through two definite stages: the spreading of the garments 
in the way, 3 with the shouts of the crowd bursting forth 
only at the descent of the Mount of Olives when the city 
comes into view (19:37). In Matthew and Mark the 
spreading of the garments and the branches in the way and 
the cries of the crowd are simultaneous. 

It is these festal features that the Christian imagina¬ 
tion has always associated with Palm Sunday. It is inter¬ 
esting to note, however, that the palms are mentioned only 
in the Fourth Gospel (12:13). In Jewish practice the 
palms were displayed at the feast of Tabernacles, not at the 
Passover. In our ecclesiastical calendar the palms have al¬ 
ways symbolized the triumphant element which the Chris¬ 
tian mind has discovered not only in this incident but in 
the whole of the life and work of Jesus. The spreading of 
garments in a hero’s path is a characteristic act of oriental 
homage. (II Kings 9:13.) In fact, the attitude, actions 
and utterances of the crowd suggest the reception of a con¬ 
quering hero. 

What is the meaning of this incident ? How shall we 
interpret this enthusiastic outburst ? 

The great difficulty that confronts us in interpreting 
the Bethany demonstration is the fact that it is already in¬ 
terpreted by the Gospel writers. All of them quite plainly 
regard it as messianic for all involved. The people are 
publicly acclaiming Jesus as the Messiah. Ther.e is the 
messianic mount of prophecy (Zech. 9:9), the acts of 

3 Luke omits the “ branches ” of Matthew and Mark. 


20 


Palm Sunday 

homage, the Psalm extracts with a messianic ring to them. 
Jesus here for this one time at least, independent of what 
precedes and what follows, allows himself to be acclaimed 
publicly the Messiah. Christians generally of subsequent 
generations and centuries have shared this sentiment of ~ 
the Gospel writers: Here at the very close, at least for one 
brief day, Jesus is accepted and acclaimed as the One he 
really is! 

But when we begin to attempt to relate this messianic 
interpretation to all that has gone before and to all that 
follows, we are confronted with grave difficulties. What 
are the antecedents that would lead up to a messianic 
meaning either for the crowds or for Jesus ? If this is a 
public messianic proclamation, how shall we relate it to 
the Jerusalem events that follow ? 

Who are these people? Whence do these crowds 
come? Their identity must have some bearing on the 
meaning of their actions and utterances and throw some > 
light on their relationship to Jesus. The Fourth Gospel 
has a motley multitude — some are Passover pilgrims al¬ 
ready arrived in the Holy City (12:12); others have wit¬ 
nessed his maximum wonder-work, the raising of Lazarus 
(17); others are those who have only heard of this resur¬ 
rection from the dead (18). It is important to note that 
the Fourth Evangelist’s crowd comes out from the Holy 
City. Even the pilgrims to the feast are already in Jeru¬ 
salem; they have not been in Jesus’ company during the 
long journey from Galilee. All come out to meet Jesus 


21 


The Passion Week 

as he returns to the Holy City after a day and a night in 
Bethany. 

In the first three Gospels the situation is wholly dif¬ 
ferent. The crowds are Galileans on their way to Jeru¬ 
salem; they are Jesus’ fellow-pilgrims to the Passover. 
They have been in his company — better perhaps, he in 
theirs — throughout the eventful journey to the Holy City. 
They appeared first when he left Galilee for the region 
east of the Jordan. (Mark 10:1.) They were with him 
passing through Jericho (10:46), and now with him they 
descend the Mount of Olives into the city itself. 

When we think of these crowds as Galileans, such as 
they are represented in the first three Gospels, it is difficult 
to read a messianic meaning into their actions and utter¬ 
ances. The usual attitude of the Galilean public that we 
have met, wherever it has expressed itself, has been to the 
effect that Jesus is a prophet and that he is honored as such. 
(Mark 6:15; 8:28.) If suddenly they have come to the 
messianic conviction concerning him, how and what has 
brought the change about ? His words and works on the 
way up from the north country have not been essentially 
different for the general public from the things said and 
done in Galilee. How is it that the messianic dignity of 
their prophet would suddenly dawn upon them only when 
he and they are off their native soil ? If a messianic mean¬ 
ing now captures the Galilean mind,-how shall we explain 
its fickleness or lack of courage in crisis ? How is it that 
these Galileans hail Jesus as God’s chosen Messiah on Palm 


22 



Palm Sunday 


Sunday and less than a week later never raise a finger in 
his behalf when he is caught in the coils of the death 
process ? 

Really the attitude of the Galileans here on the Mount 
of Olives is not substantially different from what it has 
always been. To be sure, this is the first instance of public 
ovation and homage. But the thronging of the multitudes 
back in Galilee, the eagerness with which they look and 
listen, their amazement at his words and deeds, the rapid 
spread of his fame, his futile efforts to be alone, their per¬ 
sistent pursuit of him — all of these things have the same 
public faith and feeling behind them that now expresses 
itself in a new manner on approaching the Holy City. 
Judging from the Jerusalem events that follow so rapidly, 
Jesus on the descent from the Mount of Olives remains for 
these enthusiastic Galileans the same puzzling person that 
he has always been, that he was when he taught and 
healed in their own countrysides and villages. 

The incident at Bethany does not seem to have had a 
messianic meaning for Jesus personally. His words and 
actions on this occasion and later would not suggest a pub¬ 
lic messianic proclamation on his part. In Jerusalem he is 
the same prophet in word and deed that he was in Galilee. 
His actions and utterances acquire no new, messianic col¬ 
oring. His attitude toward the messianic issue, wherever 
it appears, is essentially unchanged. In Jerusalem, as we 
shall see, he is seemingly as reserved and reticent as ever. 
If he sensed any messianic suggestions in what was said 

23 


The Passion Week 

and done in the Bethany outburst, he simply let it pass, as 
usual, without comment or commitment on his part. 

We cannot associate a messianic meaning of the Beth¬ 
any demonstration with the general attitude of the Jeru¬ 
salem authorities with whom Jesus promptly comes into 
conflict. It is indeed surprising that this demonstration, 
in which the Gospel writers discover so much, is without 
consequences in the eventful days that follow. It is never 
again referred to by Jesus or others, friend or foe. Even 
his bitterest enemies in the Holy City take no notice of it, 
and if it had had a messianic coloring they would hardly 
have overlooked it during those first three days when 
they were seemingly desperate to find matter that would 
furnish a case against him. If Jesus, with his Galilean 
entourage, had made a messianic entry into the Holy City, 
it certainly would not have been completely ignored in 
the trial where the messianic issue is the crux of both the 
Jewish and the Roman hearings. 

If we look carefully into the Bethany incident and 
seek out its original setting — a Galilean prophet and Gali¬ 
lean pilgrims going up to the Holy City for the celebration 
of the most sacred of Jewish festivals, we see that nothing 
necessarily messianic is involved in what is said and done. 
The most impressive reconstruction, then, will be the most 
natural one, and the most natural meaning will be as Jew- 
ish as possible, for Jesus and these Galileans are Jews, all of 
them sharers of the deepest sentiments and hopes of Israel. 

For centuries Jerusalem had been the center of Israel’s 


24 





Palm Sunday 


religious life, and as the Holy City it symbolized all that 
was nearest and dearest to the Jewish heart in the way of 
devout hopes and fears. Here was the temple, the dwell¬ 
ing-place of Israel’s God; here was its center of wor¬ 
ship, its altars, its holy of holies. Here the great festivals 
were celebrated, and thither pious Jews from all parts of 
the known world found their way, pilgrims to Jahwe’s 
sanctuary. Especially among the Jews of the provinces 
this idealization of Zion lived on and the sacred spell that 
their pious fancy cast about the city kindly spared them 
the realistic side of the city’s religious business and traffic. 
Every loyal son of Israel looked forward to his pilgrimage 
to the holy place. 

These pilgrimages were often accomplished in high 
emotional tension, and as the city drew nearer and nearer 
feeling increased. The first glimpse of its sacred walls was 
a dramatic moment. From the Mount of Olives Galileans 
and others coming up by way of Jericho caught their first 
view. At this moment the tense feelings found release in 
prophetic passages and song. Certain of the Psalms, prais¬ 
ing Zion and celebrating the loveliness of its towers and 
walls, seem to have been born at this moment, expressing 
the emotions of the pious pilgrim from the provinces 
when first he sights the Zion of God. 

The Gospel account of the Bethany demonstration 
seems to have behind it this simpler Jewish demonstration. 
We seem to have here the usual outburst of pilgrim song 
and psalm when the Holy City comes into view. The ho- 

25 


The Passion Week 

sannas and the cries of the crowd would not compromise 
the Jewish character of the incident, for Jewish religious 
hopes and fears were always associated with God’s chosen 
One. The Mount of Olives had its own messianic sugges¬ 
tions. According to Zechariah 14:4 Jehovah in his day 
will appear on the Mount of Olives. Josephus tells us that 
popular Jewish belief set the scene of the Messiah’s appear¬ 
ance there. 

This usual outburst of religious feeling may have 
turned into an unpremeditated demonstration in honor of 
Jesus. It would become, then, an outburst of patriotic and 
provincial pride. The Galileans honor him who for 
months now has been their very own prophet. That this 
personal element in honor of Jesus is prophetic, not mes¬ 
sianic, is especially clear in the reply of the crowds on en¬ 
tering the city itself. (Matt. 21:11). Thus, the Galilean 
attitude toward Jesus on the Mount of Olives is not differ¬ 
ent from what it was at home. Off their common native 
soil, in strange and sacred surroundings, he appeared more 
than ever their very own. 

Just all that this striking scene meant for Jesus, just all 
that the Galileans meant by it, we cannot say. But if we 
are seeking history, we must think of it in Jewish and 
Galilean terms rather than in terms of later Christian in¬ 
terpretation. It seems to have been only a variation of the 
usual demonstration on sighting the Holy City. But for 
the earliest Christians this scene was full of suggestions 
which writers and readers of the Gospels did not fail to 


Palm Sunday 


catch. The belief in Jesus’ messiahship, so far as we 
know, was universal among New Testament Christians. 
and it has invaded the whole of the Christian story of his 
life and work — his words and deeds, major phases of his 
mission, principal features of his personality. Certainly 
no scene in the Gospels lent itself more promptly to this 
process of involuntary invasion than the Bethany demon¬ 
stration, and there could be no real hope of escaping. 
John 12:16 probably gives us reliable history on this point: 

“ These things understood not his disciples at the first: but 
when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these 
things were written of him, and that they had done these 
things unto him.” The Bethany demonstration probably 
acquired its messianic coloring in the light of the Easter 
faith. 

2. THE PROTEST OF THE PHARISEES. 

Lu\e 19:39-40. 

Matthew and Mark report only one incident on the 
Mount of Olives, the demonstration itself, with nothing 
intervening between it and the entry into the city, Luke, 
however, introduces two little scenes that take place after 
the demonstration and before the arrival in the city itself, 
our present passage and the following. (19:41-44.) This 
first scene takes the form of a protest against the demon¬ 
stration. Mark has no such protest from any source. 
Matthew, however, has a parallel scene in 21:15-16 where 
the chief priests and the scribes protest against the cries of 

27 


The Passion Week 

the children in the temple. The Fourth Gospel (12:19) 
reports a reaction of the Pharisees, a sort of sullen com¬ 
plaint among themselves. 

It is interesting to note that the Pharisees who protest 
in Luke 19:39 regard the whole multitude as Jesus’ follow¬ 
ers: “ Teacher, rebuke thy disciples.” Jesus’ reply (19:40) 
comes in the form of an exalted word such as now and then 
escapes his lips: “ I tell you, if these shall hold their peace, 
the stones will cry out.” In Luke, then, we might think of 
Jesus himself as caught away in the enthusiasm of the mo¬ 
ment, but the nature of this utterance would not suggest 
that he is thinking of the outburst in the terms of his 
own personal honor. Jesus’word is genuinely Jewish. He 
himself shares the faith and feelings that stir the Galileans 
about him. The first sight of the Holy City must have 
meant as much to Jesus as to any Passover pilgrim and it 
aroused within him all that he hoped and believed, all that 
he preached and prayed for. In this word Jesus is still the 
Galilean prophet who feels the importance of the hour in 
which he lives. 

3. THE PROPHECY OF THE FALL 
OF JERUSALEM. 

Lu\e 19:41-44. 

This is Luke’s third scene on the Mount of Olives, the 
second which he inserts between the demonstration and 
the entry into the city which come immediately together 
in Matthew and Mark. According to Luke, Jesus is near- 
28 


Palm Sunday 


ing the city; it is in full view, and he weeps over it. This 
passage would suggest that Jesus’ thought on the Mount 
of Olives has been centered on the Holy City and that the 
demonstration must have had some primary association 
with its coming into view. 

This is the first of a series of Zionistic passages which 
Luke alone ascribes to Jesus during these last days. 
Exactly the same theme with different treatment appears 
in the prophecy over the weeping daughters of Jerusalem 
on the way to the cross. (23:27~3i.) Other words center¬ 
ing on the fate of Jerusalem we meet in Luke’s form of the 
address on the last things. (21120-22,24.) 

A number of scholars are skeptical about the genuine¬ 
ness of this passage. Others hold to it as a genuine word 
of Jesus. But the origin and history of such passages are 
difficult to determine because they are so general and rep¬ 
resent a common ground on which prophetic Judaism, the 
religion of Jesus and primitive Christianity stood. Our 
present prophecy is generally Jewish rather than especially 
distinctive of Jesus. It has an Old Testament base, theme 
and tone. 4 The passage is true to the typical prophetic 
temper. Prophet-like, Jesus looks upon the Holy City, 
loves it, weeps over it and forecasts its fall. 

4 Cf. Isa. 29:3; 37:33; Jer. 6:6; Eccl. 9:14; Ezek. 4:2; 26:8. 


29 


The Passion Week 

4. THE ENTRY INTO THE HOLY CITY. 

Matthew 21:10-11. Mar\ 11:11a. 

Luke gives no actual notice of the entry into the city 
itself. He goes from the preceding prophecy when Jesus 
is nearing the city and weeps over it to the scene in the 
temple. The entry into the city itself Mark dismisses with 
a brief notice as though it were without incident. 

In Matthew, however, the entry into Jerusalem forms 
a dramatic scene. The cheering that began at Bethany 
continues right down to the gates of the city and through 
the streets. All the city is disturbed by the demonstration, 
as it was by the news of his birth. (2:3~4.) This effect on 
the people of Jerusalem is enhanced in the Fourth Gospel. 
They hear the news of his coming; they do not await his 
arrival but go out to meet him. (12:12, 18.) But in the 
first three Gospels Jesus as a prophet with a public message 
and mission is a newcomer and a stranger. The Jerusalem 
people ask, “ Who is this? ” (Matt. 21:10.) 

The reply of the Galileans is very interesting and 
throws light on the nature of the demonstration — “ This 
is the prophet, Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.” (21 :n.) 
There is no hint of a messianic meaning and the Galilean 
attitude is the same in Jerusalem that it was at home: 
Jesus is a prophet, their prophet, and their demonstration 
is a spontaneous outburst of provincial pride. This pro¬ 
phetic estimate of Jesus appears again in Matthew 21:46. 
In fact, the general Jerusalem impression is the same that 
we meet in Galilee. It is Jesus’ popularity as a prophet and 
30 


Palm Sunday 

teacher that protects him from his Jerusalem enemies and 
that eventually forces them to resort to speedy and secret 
action. 

5. IN THE TEMPLE— OBERVATIONS. 

Matthew 21:12 a. Mar\ 11:11 b. Lu\e 19:450. 

All three of the Synoptic writers agree that Jesus goes 
immediately to the temple on arriving in the Holy City. 
“ This was the first duty of every Jew, from no matter 
what country, when he came to the feast of the Passover; 
we have a parallel in the visit to the ‘ Wailing Wall ’ at the 
present day.” 5 In the Fourth Gospel there is no notice of 
a visit to the temple in this connection for Jesus is not a 
Passover pilgrim coming up from Galilee as he is in the 
first three Gospels. 

This prompt visit to the temple throws light perhaps 
on the real motive of Jesus in making the journey to Jeru¬ 
salem. He came up as a pious pilgrim to the most sacred 
of the Jewish feasts. None of the Gospel writers tells us of 
an act of worship on Jesus’ part, of the bringing of an 
offering, on this occasion or on the following days during 
which the temple is the principal scene of his activity. 
The only cult in which he participates is the Passover meal 
on the last night, and this was not associated with the 
temple. 

Both Matthew and Luke omit Mark’s notice, “ when 
he had looked round about upon all things.” In Mark this 

5 Klausner, Jesus of 'Nazareth, p. 311. Reprinted by permission of The 
Macmillan Company. 


31 


The Passion Week 

notice explains to the reader why Jesus does not act at once 
as he does in Matthew and Luke, and, as we shall see, it 
gives a very distinctive character to the act itself in Mark. 
It is deliberate, delayed, decisive. 

With this visit to the temple the first day of the passion 
week is really over in Mark. There remains only the no¬ 
tice of the nearness of evening and the return to Bethany. 
In Matthew and Luke, however, the day is not done. One 
of its two principal incidents comes next, the cleansing of 
the temple, and Matthew has two other notices beyond it 
before he tells of the return to Bethany. 

6. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE . 

Matthew 21:12^-13. Lu\e 19:45^-46. 

It is at this point that Matthew and Luke make their 
first principal departure from Mark’s calendar of the pas¬ 
sion week. Both report the cleansing of the temple as tak¬ 
ing place on the same day as the triumphal entry and on 
the very first visit to the temple. In Mark a night in 
Bethany intervenes between the visit to the temple on the 
first day and the cleansing which becomes the principal 
event on the second day. This anticipation of the Markan 
arrangement by Matthew and Luke throws a special light 
on the nature of the act itself: on the first day on the first 
visit Jesus cleanses the temple. The act appears, then, as 
more spontaneous and temperamental, performed more 
on the spur of the moment. (Cf. p. 43 ff.) 

With the cleansing of the temple the first day seems to 
32 


Palm Sunday 


be over in Luke. He takes no notice of the close of the day 
or of a departure from the city, but the events in 19:29-46 
he has presented in continuous, unbroken narrative as 
though they followed in rapid succession. In his next 
notice (19:47a) he tells us that Jesus taught daily in the 
temple, and for the remainder of Jesus’ public work in 
Jerusalem he has no clear division into definite days such 
as we find in Mark. 

7. THE BUND AND LAME CURED 
IN THE TEMPLE. 

Matthew 21 :i4- 

Matthew has two more scenes in the temple on Palm 
Sunday, our present passage and the following. This 
first has to do with the cure of blind and lame following 
immediately upon the cleansing. This notice is one of 
those general mentions of cures with no specific cases 
cited. It is interesting because it stands so isolated in the 
Jerusalem account. Mark has no notice of cures in Jeru¬ 
salem, and with the exception of the cure at the gates of 
Jericho (10:46-52) all of Jesus’ healing activity is con¬ 
fined to Galilee. The case is exactly the same in Matthew 
apart from this one notice of cures in the temple on Palm 
Sunday. 6 Luke has one specific case of cure in his Jeru¬ 
salem story, the healing of the severed ear in Gethsemane. 
(22:51b.) He has no general mention of cures. On his 

6 Both Matthew (21:18-19) and Mark (11:12-14) report the wonder worked 
on the barren fig tree. 


33 


The Passion Week 

long and eventful journey to Jerusalem (9:51-19:28) Luke 
reported five cures: the dumb demoniac (11:14) which 
Matthew assigned to Galilee (9:32-33; 12:22-23); two 
Sabbath cures (13:10-17; 14:1-6), both of which have a 
distinctly Galilean atmosphere about them; the ten lepers 
in the borders of Galilee and Samaria (17:11-19); finally, 
the Markan cure at the gates of Jericho (18:35-43). 

The healing activity of Jesus, so prominent in Galilee, 
virtually disappears from the Jerusalem days. The time in 
the Holy City is, of course, very brief — only three days in 
public according to Mark. But even in Galilee there was 
clear from the first days in public a growing disinclination 
of Jesus to heal. In the latter half of the Galilean period 
the cures became less and less frequent. In Galilee Jesus 
was known as a teacher and healer. In Jerusalem, how¬ 
ever, his reputation as a healer does not come to light and 
he is generally known during this brief week as the ag¬ 
gressive prophet who cleansed the temple and its courts 
and who preached his passionate message in the face of 
official opposition. 

8. THE PROTEST OF THE CHIEF PRIESTS. 
Matthew 21:15-16. 

This is Matthew’s final incident on Palm Sunday. It, 
too, has its scene in the temple and it is found only in 
Matthew. Luke reported a similar situation back in 
19:39-40 where the Pharisees protested against the dem¬ 
onstration on the Mount of Olives. Here in the temple, 


34 


Palm Sunday 


however, the chief priests and scribes protest against the 
hosannas of the children. Their cry, “ Hosanna to the son 
of David,” is verbatim the echo of the shouts of the crowas 
on the Mount of Olives. (Matt. 21 :g.) 

In Mark and Luke the demonstration was confined to 
the Mount of Olives with no echoes of it in the city itself. 
But in Matthew the ovation that begins at Bethphage 
(21 :i-g) continues down to the gates of the city, through 
the streets (21:10-11), and finally subsides in the temple 
(21:15-16). In Matthew it is more sustained and becomes 
a veritable triumphal procession from the Mount of Olives 
to the temple itself. 

This scene in Matthew marks the first appearance 
of Jesus’ Jerusalem enemies. (Cf. Mark 11:18; Luke 
19:47-48.) It is rather surprising at this point that their 
protest makes no reference to the cleansing of the tem¬ 
ple but confines itself to the cries of the children. (Cf. 
p. 49 f.) 

9. THE RETURN TO BETHANY. 

Matthew 21 :iy. Mar\ n :n c. 

With this brief notice Palm Sunday closes in Matthew 
and Mark. It is evening; Jesus returns to Bethany, the 
twelve with him. These retreats to Bethany form the di¬ 
viding lines between the first three days in Mark, between 
just the first two days in Matthew. Luke in 2137 desig¬ 
nates “ the mount that is called Olivet ” as the scene of 
Jesus’ retreats for the Jerusalem nights. 


35 


The Passion Week 


In reviewing this first day, Palm Sunday, we find that 
it is more eventful in Matthew and Luke than it is in Mark 
who has reported the demonstration, the visit to the tem¬ 
ple, observations, the coming of evening and the return to 
Bethany. Matthew reported the demonstration on the 
Mount of Olives, in the streets of the city itself, and then 
three scenes in the temple — the cleansing, the cures of the 
blind and the lame, the protest of the chief priests and 
scribes against the cries of the children — closing with the 
notice of the return to Bethany. Luke began with three 
scenes on the Mount of Olives — the demonstration, the 
protest of the Pharisees against it, the prophecy of the fall 
of Jerusalem — and ended with the cleansing of the tem¬ 
ple. From this point on we have only a vague chronology 
in Luke (19:47a; 21:37); sharp dividing lines for 
Mark’s first three days disappear. 


36 


CHAPTER 11 


MONDAY 






vo 

I 

• • 
On 


C 

Q 

£ 

O 




VO 
• • 


rv-s 


°0 
• # 


'N . ‘ 

^ M 


vo - 

rv^ ^ ^ ^ 

K, cs ^ cs 


2rss ,v 


<L> 

^4 

3 

h 4 


oo 

r 


44 

U( 

a 


M M 

is in oo on 


£ 

4 J 

M 

4 -> 
4 —> 

OJ 


ON 


OO 

M 


(S 


<D 

<D 

Vh 

H 

bJO 

fe 

<u 

^3 ' 

4 -> 

M-l 

o 

bJQ 

a 

co 


CO 

<U 

• »-h 
U 4 

o 

CO 

<u 


ctf 

<u 

-& 

a 

<u 

H 

<U T3 
~C d 
^ cd 

'-M W5 

O 

CO 

tuo.Ji 
C £ 
55 Ph 
G <-w 
aj <U 

3 jy £ 

u o u 

<L> <U <U 

J J J 5 

HHH 


<J 

<L> 

03 

4 -> 

<D 
"T 3 
* co 

4 -» 

o 

co 
<D 
bJD co 
HD t«. 
O cs 

^ a 

co 

3 o 

CO ►—* 

<U ^ 


I 

















rt t/) t 












1 HE second day of the passion week is set off very 
clearly in Mark. In 11:12 we are on the morning of the 
day following the Bethany demonstration. Jesus and his 
disciples are on their way into the city from Bethany 
where they have spent the night. Mark makes no formal 
notice of the close of this second day (n 119), but in 11:20 
we are on the morning following the events related in 
11:12-18. 

In Matthew 21:18 we have a very specific notice of 
the beginning of the second day. It is an exact parallel 
to Mark 11:12 with Jesus returning to Jerusalem after 
the night spent in Bethany. Matthew, however, does not 
note the close of the second day nor the beginning of the 
third. Thus, the events of Monday and Tuesday, so clearly 
set off in Mark, are merged in the first Gospel. The first 
notice of a new day in Matthew after 21:18 comes in 26:2 
— and this is not wholly clear and distinct — where we are 
on Wednesday, two days before the Passover. Matthew’s 
merging of events on the second and third days is the re¬ 
sult of his bringing the cursing of the fig tree (21:18-19) 
and Jesus’ comment on the withered tree (21:2o) imme¬ 
diately together into a continuous narrative and single 
scene on the morning of the second day. In Mark, how- 

39 


The Passion Week 

ever, the cursing of the fig tree (11:12-14) and the com¬ 
ment (11:20-21) are separated by a period of twenty-four 
hours — the first coming on the morning of the second 
day and the second coming on the morning of the third 
day. Of the events that Mark assigns to Monday only the 
cursing of the fig tree remains in Matthew. The cleans¬ 
ing of the temple Matthew assigned to Palm Sunday 
(21:12-13) as well as the first encounter of Jesus with his 
Jerusalem enemies (21:15-16). The general notice of 
nightly retreats from the city in Mark 11:19 Matthew 
omits. 

Luke has, in reality, no parallels to Mark’s second day. 
He nowhere reports the cursing of the fig tree. Like Mat¬ 
thew, he assigned the cleansing of the temple to Palm 
Sunday. The general notice of retreats to Olivet each 
night Luke gives much later (2137) when Jesus’ public 
work in Jerusalem is done — a sort of retrospect. How¬ 
ever, Luke has Jesus’ enemies make their first appearance 
as they do in Matthew and Mark, in connection with the 
cleansing of the temple (19:47-48), but without definite 
designation of the day. 

In Mark there are two principal events on Monday, 
the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple. 
These are followed by notices of the desire of the chief 
priests to destroy Jesus and the habit of leaving the city 
each evening. 


40 


Monday 


i. THE CURSING OF THE FIG TREE. 

Matthew 21:18-19. Mar\ 11:12-14. 

The second day of the passion week opens with the 
cursing of the fig tree in both Matthew and Mark. It has 
its scene on the way into the city after the night in Beth¬ 
any. Luke omits the cursing of the fig tree altogether. 
Reasons for this omission are not difficult to supply, al¬ 
though we cannot be sure of just the reason that was at 
work in Luke’s mind. A very plausible reason is to be 
found in Luke’s parable of the barren fig tree in 13:6-9 
which may be regarded in substance as a superior parallel 
to Mark’s cursing. A second reason for Luke’s omission 
may be given — namely, he found Mark’s cursing offen¬ 
sive, wholly unworthy of Jesus. The very nature of the 
story was repulsive to him. Such an act he could not fit 
into his picture of Jesus. 

Matthew takes no offense at the cursing of the fig tree. 
On the contrary, he seems to take a delight in the tale. 
Matthew goes so far as to have the tree wither on the spot, 
under the very breath of Jesus’ curse and before the very 
eyes of the disciples. “ And immediately the fig tree with¬ 
ered away” (21:19b). In Mark, however, the curse is 
pronounced on the morning of the second day (n: 12-14), 
and it is only on the following morning that the disci¬ 
ples notice that the tree has withered and call Jesus’ atten¬ 
tion to the fact (11:20). In Matthew we have an extrava¬ 
gant enhancement of the marvel. In one respect, however, 
Matthew’s account is a definite improvement over Mark, 

4i 


The Passion Week 

for he omits Mark’s notice in 11:13b, “for it was not 
the season of figs.” By this omission Matthew has elimi¬ 
nated the unreasonable and most offensive element in 
Mark’s account. 

The cursing of the fig tree has always been a source 
of embarrassment for Christian writers and readers. The 
third Evangelist simply removed it from his story of Jesus, 
and we should have suffered no appreciable loss if the first 
and second Gospel writers had done the same thing. As 
the story now stands it has no real religious value. It is 
impossible to associate it with all that we know of Jesus. 
It stands in open conflict with practically everything that 
the Gospel writers have led us to think of him. It is really 
surprising that the first and second Evangelists do not 
sense the incompatibility but go ahead to add words of 
Jesus on prayer and forgiveness in connection with the 
cursing. (Matt. 21:20-22; Mark 11:20-25.) The mood 
and temper of the act are wholly foreign to the disposition 
of the words that follow immediately. Both Matthew and 
Mark seem to regard the withering of the tree as a strik¬ 
ing example of the power of faith in God and prayer 
to him. Throughout the Gospel story we are deeply im¬ 
pressed, not only with Jesus’ words on faith and prayer 
but with his own actual believing and praying. Yet 
our impression everywhere has not associated Jesus’ 
faith in God and his confidence in the prayer-act with 
such questionable acts and incidents. Jesus’ believing 
and praying are extravagant enough, but elsewhere 

42 - 


Monday 


they remain on a high moral level and refuse to resort to 
magic. 

Efforts to save the cursing of the fig tree are as fruit¬ 
less as the tree. The physical impossibility of the act takes 
it out of the realm of historical probability. No moral mo¬ 
tive can be discovered that might justify the act, if it were 
physically possible. The reported hunger of Jesus is only 
a feeble confession of its groundlessness in reason. How 
sharp is the conflict between Jesus’ reactions to hunger 
here and in the first temptation of Matthew (4:1-4) and 
Luke (4:1-4)! The unreasonableness of cursing a tree for 
not bearing fruit out of season 1 requires an utterly faith¬ 
less credulity to save it. It is the only destructive act at¬ 
tributed to Jesus with the exception of the later legend of 
the herd of swine catapulting down the steep into the Sea 
of Galilee. 2 From both the historical and the religious 
angles the sense and courage of Luke in discarding it will 
recommend themselves to us. 

2. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE. 

Mar\ 11:15-17. 

The cleansing of the temple we met in the arrange¬ 
ment of Matthew and Luke as a part of Palm Sunday. In 
both this striking step was taken on the first day on the 
first visit. In the first and third Gospels, then, the act ap¬ 
pears more temperamental in character, more impulsive, 

1 We are here in April and the ripened figs come only in June. 

2 Matt. 8:30-32; Mark 5:11-13; Luke 8:32-33. 


43 


The Passion Week 

performed on the spur of the moment. In Mark, on the 
other hand, the cleansing is the principal incident in the 
city itself on the second day. Since Jesus’ first visit to 
the temple and his observations on the first day a night in 
Bethany has intervened. In Mark Jesus does not act at 
once on the first visit but only on entering the temple on 
Monday, the second day. The act in Mark, too, has its 
own special character: it is delayed, deliberate and deter¬ 
mined. Mark seems to intend to convey the impression 
that Jesus, after his observations on Palm Sunday, comes 
to the decision to cleanse the temple during the night in 
Bethany, for he acts promptly on arriving at the temple 
the next morning. 

Luke recounts the cleansing in the fewest possible 
words. He mentions only the casting out of them that 
sold with no reference to the buyers, the overthrowing of 
the tables of the money-changers and the seats of them that 
sold doves. Luke’s interest seems to center chiefly in Jesus’ 
words on this occasion, for he reproduces the full Markan 
form with the exception of the phrase, “ for all the na¬ 
tions.” But his radical condensation would show that he 
does not ascribe to it the importance for what follows that 
Matthew and Mark do. Luke pictures the Jerusalem op¬ 
position as centering around Jesus’ teaching rather than 
any particular act of his. This is clear in his special ver¬ 
sion of the charges against Jesus at the Roman trial. 
(23:2-5.) 

Both Matthew and Luke omit the most distinctive fea- 


44 


Monday 


ture of Mark’s account, verse 16: “ and he would not suf¬ 
fer that any man should carry a vessel through the temple.” 
In Mark, then, this act appears all the more determined 
and revolutionary, for he not only cleanses the temple but 
polices it. Josephus tells us that it was forbidden to bring 
a vessel into the temple. It is now generally supposed that 
the traffic which Jesus here blocks is the use of the temple 
courts as a short-cut from one quarter of the city to 
another. 

Some of the most familiar details of the cleansing of 
the temple are found only in the Fourth Gospel (2:13-17): 
the oxen, the sheep, the whip of cords. In John we should 
think that Jesus drove them all out, man and beast, except 
the dove-sellers whom he commands, “ Take these things 
hence.” He seems less drastic with this group; his only 
word is addressed to them, not to all the traders: “ Make 
not my Father’s house a house of merchandise.” (2:16.) 
This word makes no reference to the temple as a house of 
prayer, as in the first three Gospels, and Jesus speaks of it 
as “my Father’s house” as he does in Luke 2:49. In 
the Fourth Gospel the Old Testament passage is not on the 
lips of Jesus but is called to the disciples’ minds by the 
scene as a whole, “ Zeal for thy house shall eat me up.” 
(Ps. 69:9.) 

The actual conditions that prevailed in the courts of 
the temple and that brought Jesus into action are not ex¬ 
actly known to us. The Jewish regulations and precepts 
were specific and strict enough on the purity of the temple. 

45 


The Passion Week 

But enforcement, as always, may have been a different 
matter. Rabbi Klausner admits a probable breach be¬ 
tween precept and practice. “ In Jesus’ time the Sadducee- 
Boethuseans controlled the temple, and they may not 
have treated the outer court as too holy to permit of the 
sale of doves and pigeons or of money-changing for the 
purchase of seals for the various temple offerings.” 3 

The cleansing of the temple must have beqn a remark¬ 
able scene. A stranger from the north country drives out 
the trade and traffic. Whether accomplished with the aid 
of his disciples and others or alone and single-handed, 
it still remains a striking step for any newcomer in Jeru¬ 
salem. To just what the act owed its success, we cannot 
say: the speed and surprise with which Jesus took the situa¬ 
tion in his own hands, the guilty conscience of the dealers 
and the authorities who permitted this trade, the ap¬ 
proval and support of general public sentiment, or simply 
the imposing impression of Jesus’ personality. How long 
the remedied condition continued we do not know. At 
least, the temple is the chief center of Jesus’ public teach¬ 
ing during these two or three days, and there is no account 
of a repetition of the act. There is no reason for suppos¬ 
ing that he accomplished anything permanent. With his 
speedy disappearance from the scene, things probably 
went on as before. 

The cleansing of the temple is a genuinely prophetic 
act. All the way through the account of Jesus in the first 

3 Klausner, Jesus of 'Nazareth, p. 314. 


46 


Monday 


three Gospels, in his general teaching and religious expe¬ 
rience, we come to think of him as a prophetic person¬ 
ality. Now that he swings into action in the temple, he is 
still the prophet, still the champion of a moral and ethical 
religion over against a religion of cult and ceremony. The 
cleansing of the temple is simply another scene in the age- 
old conflict between the priest and the prophet; two funda¬ 
mentally opposed experiences of religion here come to 
grips. It was at Israel’s altars and shrines that the proph¬ 
ets had appeared announcing their message of doom, con¬ 
demning the elaborate systems of cult that were empty 
of genuine worship and calling for a turning from these 
things to the will and way of God. The prophetic char¬ 
acter of the act here is especially clear in Jesus’ word which 
is a combination of two passages from the prophets. (Isa. 
58:7b; Jer. 7:11.) In his opposition to the temple’s trade 
and traffic Jesus is true to the very best of the prophetic 
spirit. 

The cleansing of the temple required some pilgrim 
prophet from the provinces. It would be difficult to con¬ 
ceive of the idea occurring to a native of Jerusalem, still 
more difficult to imagine him setting the idea into action. 
The Jerusalemite was not shocked by the trade and the 
traffic; he was accustomed to the business side of religion. 
In cleansing the temple Jesus appears as the unspoiled 
Galilean who has not learned to think of the holy place in 
terms of its trade and traffic and who still idealizes it as a 
place of prayer and worship. The man who prayed to 

47 


The Passion Week 

God in the solitude and seclusion of the Galilean deserts, 
who had learned to know silence for the sacrament that it 
is, could not adjust his spiritual ideals and instincts to the 
din and discord in the outer courts of God’s sanctuary. 

In the Fourth Gospel the cleansing of the temple is out 
of all association with the passion week. Instead of stand¬ 
ing as the last great public act of Jesus, as it is in the first 
three Gospels, it comes at the very beginning of his work 
and is really his first step into public. (2:13-17.) It comes 
at the time of a Passover, but it precedes by two (or three) 
years the Passover at which Jesus dies. 4 The cleansing of 
the temple in the Fourth Gospel is too far removed from 
the time of Jesus’ death to have been in any sense a con¬ 
tributing cause. In fact, it is not followed by any unpleas¬ 
ant consequences. It has no bearing on the fate of Jesus 
and we must seek a different cause for his death in the 
Fourth Gospel. This we find in the raising of Lazarus 
which is presented as the one act of Jesus out of which the 
final death plot grows, (n 147-53.) 

In the first three Gospels the cleansing of the temple 
belongs to the death days. It is removed from the cross by 
only four days in Mark, five days in Matthew and Luke. It 
is the chief promoting factor that brings about Jesus’ death. 
With this scene the passion drama proper begins. If we 
ask the plain historical question, What one thing brought 
about Jesus’ death in such an abrupt and tragic manner ? 

4 Our present text of the Fourth Gospel reports three Passovers during Jesus’ 
public career: 2:13; 6:4; 11:55. In some manuscripts there is the possibility 
of a fourth Passover (and a third year) in 5:1 with the reading, " the feast” 

48 


Monday 


we shall have to answer, The cleansing of the temple. To 
be sure, the cleansing does not figure in the charges against 
Jesus in the trial scenes, but henceforth the chief priests 
and their agents are omnipresent. They figure either di¬ 
rectly or indirectly in every instigation against him and 
they never leave off their persistent pursuit until the death 
scene itself. They could not use the cleansing of the tem¬ 
ple as a case against Jesus, for the act doubtless had popu¬ 
lar approval. But it does explain the determined and bit¬ 
ter opposition of the chief priests to the man who defied 
their system, invaded their own special precinct of author¬ 
ity and took things into his own hands. 

In the concrete situation in Jerusalem the cleansing 
of the temple was about the most radical step that Jesus 
could have taken. This we appreciate in what follows — 
the prompt appearance of the temple authorities, their 
bitter antagonism against Jesus and the tragic, abrupt end. 
The cleansing of the temple was the one act of Jesus that 
set the death machinery going that crushed him within less 
than a week. If Jesus had not cleansed the temple, he 
might have worked in Jerusalem for weeks and months, 
even years. But as we learn to know Jesus in the Gospel 
story we cannot imagine him failing to cleanse the temple. 

3. THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND THE SCRIBES. 

Mar\ 11:18. Lu\e 19:47-48. 

This is the first appearance of Jesus’ Jerusalem ene¬ 
mies in Mark and Luke. In Matthew they appeared on 

49 


The Passion Week 

the preceding day (21:15-16) in connection with the 
cleansing and cures in the temple. (21112-14.) Matthew 
presented an actual encounter with the chief priests and 
scribes, to our surprise, protesting against the hosannas of 
the children rather than the cleansing itself. Matthew 
noted no plot against Jesus’ life. Mark and Luke here 
give no actual encounter between Jesus and his Jerusalem 
enemies but both apprise their readers of the plot against 
his life. Mark has the chief priests and scribes as witnesses 
of Jesus’ words and deeds, and he presents their plot as 
growing directly out of what they have seen and heard at 
the cleansing. In all three Gospels the Jerusalem opposi¬ 
tion appears at a natural point, in connection with the 
cleansing of the temple; the chief priests and scribes are 
bent on Jesus’ death. 

Both Matthew and Mark have Jesus’ popularity pro¬ 
tecting him. This popular favor they associate with his 
teaching and the eagerness with which the people listen 
rather than with the radical step he has just taken. This, 
however, must have met with general public approval for 
there is no waning in the eagerness with which the people 
listen to his words. This open defiance of the constituted 
authorities probably increased the public interest in Jesus 
and enhanced the general impression which he left with 
the people. 

Jesus had met with opposition in Galilee. His princi¬ 
pal opponents were the Pharisees. Their opposition grew 
out of what Jesus represented and stood for, what he neg- 
50 


Monday 


lected and permitted, but it was not deeply personal or 
dangerous. In Jerusalem, however, Jesus strikes a very 
different set of enemies and they oppose him for very 
different reasons. They are more powerful, the chief 
priests, the most powerful Jewish party in Palestine. We 
realize how powerful they were when we note that they 
bring about Jesus’ death within less than a week. Their 
opposition to Jesus is bitterly personal. They are deter¬ 
mined upon his end because of what he personally has 
done. He has taken authority into his own hands; he 
must die. For the Jerusalem authorities Jesus was perhaps 
nothing more than just an unsophisticated prophetic up¬ 
start from the north country who deserved the prompt end 
that overtook him. 

4. JESUS LODGES OUTSIDE THE CITY. 

Mar\ 11:19. 

This is the closing notice of the second day of the pas¬ 
sion week in Mark. That it is the close is fully clear only 
in the next passage which brings us to the morning of the 
third day. (Mark n 120.) Mark 11:19 does not apply to 
this second day in particular but to the Jerusalem days as 
a whole. It is really only a generalization of the notice 
with which Matthew (21:17) and Mark (11:11) brought 
Palm Sunday to a close. Matthew has no such general 
notice in this or any other connection, but Luke has the 
same notice at the end of the public days in 21:37b. Mark 
does not mention Bethany here as in n:n; he seems to 

5i 


The Passion Week 

assume that his readers know. Luke designates the Mount 
of Olives as the scene of Jesus’ nightly retreats, and Beth¬ 
any does not have the prominence and importance in 
Luke that it has in the accounts of Matthew and Mark. 
With Bethany Luke associates just one incident — the 
demonstration. Thus, the Mount of Olives supplants 
Bethany in the third Gospel. 


The second day of the passion week, Monday, closes 
with the death drama well under way. Jesus has invaded 
the stronghold of the highest and most powerful authori¬ 
ties. Prophet-like, he has followed his religious instincts 
and impulses; he has driven the trade and traffic from the 
outer courts of the temple. By this act he has dramatized 
his prophetic message. He is a man of deed and action 
as well as of speech. “ The people all hung upon him, 
listening.” (Luke 19:48b.) Public sentiment is with him 
in all that he says and does, but popular favor cannot al¬ 
ways save a man from an abrupt and catastrophic fate. It 
may protect him for a time, but constituted authority has 
its own efficient ways of working. His death becomes, 
then, merely a matter of time, a very short time. Any de¬ 
lay is the result perhaps of public feeling which must be 
satisfied by some plausible case against him. But in no 
case is the delay long, and public favor does not deter his 
enemies from speedy action once they are ready to strike. 


52 


CHAPTER III 


TUESDAY 


VO 
• • 






^h 


OO 


^h 




O 

t 

1 


<N 

1 




O 

fN 


VO 


fN 


tk 

f>o 


• • 

1>N 


<N 
• • 

• • 
^h 


• • 

0 


• • 







n 







kV 


kV 






>-1 







• • 


• 

ON • 

NO 

00 0 



V 

• • 

OO 

1 

• 

w 

1 . 

<N 

ro Tt- 


r 

rG 

• • 

• • 

M 

• 

• 

ON • 

O 

on 

1 

M 

i!n 

p—' 

h4 

• • 

• • 

• • 

O 

• 

• 

• 

• 

<S 

(S ro 


H- 


• • 

• • 

<N 

• 

• 

• 






f'f 

m m 
• • 

M 

C* 



M 

in 

rn 

• 


• 

I>s 

Ti¬ 


O 

Tf- 


tM 

cs 

(S 


• 

M 

• M 

CS 

ro 

ro 

^r 

Tf- 

n 

1 

1 

1 

• 

1 

• 1 

1 

1 

1 

l 

1 

1 

Vh 

0 

<s 


• 

M 

• CO 

00 

OO 

in 

00 

M 

M 

cd 

3 

<N 
• • 

M 

M 


<S 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

<N 

M 

• M 

• 

• 

• 

M 

(S 

ro 

ro 


• • 

ro 

M 


< 

Q 

CO 

W 

5 

H 


£ 

ID 

-d 

±-> 

4-J 

Cd 


O 

n 


c* 


<S 


(S 

NO 

Tt“ 

<S 

CO 

0 

NO 

ON 



r* 

f 

w 

1 


T 

f 

Tt- 

T 

M 

m 00 

CO 

1 

M 

in 

co 


l 

M 

1 

M 

<s 

<N 

cs 

co 

• • 

<N 

(S 

M 

d 

co 

Tt" 

• • 

co 

d 


M 
• • 
Tf- 
<N 


u 
d) <u 
<u >% 
r »-t cd 

^ & 

bJQ _, 

. ^ ’Tj 

fe d 

__ rt 
^3 __ 

(U 'TD 
u. o 

<U r K 

J3 O 

dJ 4 -J 

rC ‘rt 

H 


^-s ^ 
cd G 

'w' O 

4-» <n 

• «-h rr 

o * ^ 

-d a 

p s 

^ o 

•V* > 

3 H 

<U d) 

1 —' d 3 

M-l ^ 

O M-l 

a ° 

o <u 

• »H *——« 

4-» n 
5/5 3* 

i § 

O' Ph 

<U <D 

JZ -G 

H H 


G 

<D 

a 

a 

cd 

J3 

00 

3 

3 

*"0 

<u 

o 


CO 

cd 

<u 

fa 

<D 

biD 

cd 


cd 

£ 3 

(L) OJ 

J3 ~G 

4-> 4-» 

M—I M—I 

o o 

<D <u 


<u 

a g 

o o 

S ~ 

^ u 

<L> £> 

4-» J-J 

3 h 

rS 00 

C <L} 

fa p 4 

<u o 
*-G 
T 3 33 

<4-* <-M 

O o 

a a 

o o 


"O 

g 

cd 

a 

a 

o 

U 

4-J 

cd 

<D 

Vh 

o 

<u 

-d 


Q 

£ 

< 


<u CO 
-d 

rt 

• »-H 

CO 

CO r ^ 

<L) QJ 


PQ 

M 

C* 


CO 


> 

cd 

Q 


o o 


G 

O 


GO 

H 

GO 

£ 

h-H 

< 

o 

c 


-S -S « 

cd cd <u <u 

Vh Vh »—♦ rH 

( 2 f 2 aa 

<U <L> <L> <D 

G G G G 

HHHH 


co 
(U <D 

3 3 

O'O' 


G 

co 

t/i CO 


W 

<D <U Q 
d d Q 
H H <d 

M (S ro ^ VO VO IN.OO C\ O w 


CO 

w 

W 

co 

H-i 

< 

3 


co 

(U 


co 

r\ 

O 

~o 


<u 

•G 

H 


c3 

JJ 

"cL 

a 

<u 

H 

<U 

^G 


G 

O 

• »H 

4-i 

U 

3 

Vh 

4-J 

co 

CD 

Q 


O 

<D 

^G 

a 

o 

Vh 

Ph 


<N ro 


14 ADDRESS ON THE LAST THINGS ... 24:3-25:46 3-37 7-36 L\ 17 : 20-37 

15 Jesus Lodges outside the City. 37-38 M\ 11:19 

a John 2:19-22. 

Matt. 26:61; 27:40. 

Mark 14:58; 15:29-30. 





















JL HE third day of the passion week is the most eventful 
of all; in fact, it is the most eventful single day in the pub¬ 
lic life of Jesus in the first three Gospels. To no other day 
do the first three Evangelists assign so much matter; to 
no other do they devote so much space. So much takes 
place on Tuesday that the reader easily forgets that he is 
following Jesus day by day through this last week. Some 
think that the day is overloaded and are skeptical about 
Mark’s division into days at this point as well as at others. 
That everything belonged just here as Mark reports it, we 
cannot, of course, be certain. It may be that the very na¬ 
ture of the matter — debates and discourses — assigned to 
the day tended to group it at this one point when in reality 
some of it belonged to other days, even to Galilee. The 
debates and discourses assigned to Tuesday could easily 
have fallen within such a narrow time limit, but it remains 
surprising that so much happens on this day, so little in 
comparison on the first and second or on the fourth and 
fifth days. 

A glance at the outline of events (opposite page) will 
show how full the day is and the amount of space that the 
first three Gospels devote to it. The day begins in Mark 
11:20 and extends through 13:37 — two and one-half 
chapters over against a half chapter for the first two days. 

55 


The Passion Week 

In 14: i we are on the fourth day. Matthew gives his paral¬ 
lels still more space than Mark, four and one-half chapters 
(21:2i-25:46), due to the fact that he introduces, especially 
in the discourses, a great deal of matter not found in 
Mark’s Gospel. We must remember that Matthew notes 
neither the day’s beginning nor its close and that he has 
merged Mark’s second and third days by having no inter¬ 
val of twenty-four hours between the cursing of the fig tree 
(21:18-19) and Jesus’ comment on the withered tree 
(21:20) such as Mark has (11:12-14, 20-21). If it were 
not for Mark’s twenty-four hours between the curse 
(11:12-14) an d the comment (11:20-21) we should natu¬ 
rally think that all the matter in Matthew 21:2i-25 146 be¬ 
longed on the same day, Monday, as the cursing of the fig 
tree (21:18-20). In Matthew 26:1 we are two days before 
the Passover. 

We have become accustomed to Luke’s vague chronol¬ 
ogy for the first three days of the passion week. He did 
not note the close of the first, the beginning or the close 
of the second day. He shows no interest in a day-by-day 
division. In all of his parallels to Mark’s first three days 
Luke has a single chronological notice in 20:1 — “ on one 
of the days.” This notice is parallel to the beginning of 
the temple scenes on Mark’s third day. What is very 
clearly the fourth day in Mark (14:1), two days before the 
Passover, becomes in Luke (22:1) just a note concerning 
the nearness of the Passover. Luke’s chronology fails to 
appear doubtless because of his lack of interest, but actu- 
56 




Tuesday 

ally it disappears because he omits the cursing of the fig 
tree and Jesus’ subsequent comment with which Mark’s 
notices of the beginning of the second and third days, re¬ 
spectively, are associated. (Mark 11:12, 20.) In space 
Luke’s parallels (20:1-21:38) correspond very closely to 
Mark, for he makes no extensive elaboration of the two 
discourses as Matthew does in this section. After omitting 
the first two passages, Luke parallels Mark almost passage 
for passage throughout the day. 

It is worth while to follow the shifts of scene on this 
third day in Mark. Tuesday, like Monday, opens with a 
scene on the way into the city — the discovery of the 
withered fig tree and Jesus’ comments. (Mark n :20-25.) 
Then follows the scene in the temple where most of the 
matter reported has its setting. (11:27-12:44.) Jesus 
leaves the temple in 13:1-2 — apparently toward evening. 
Finally, the day comes to a close with the address on the 
last things on the Mount of Olives. (13:3—37.) The shifts 
of scene are exactly the same in Matthew, keeping in mind 
that the second and third days are merged. 1 In Luke 
these shifts of scene disappear. He has no scene on the 
way into the city. For all that is reported in this section 
Luke has just one scene, the temple. (20:1-23:38.) He 
has no notice of Jesus leaving the temple (21 15 - 6 ) and he 
does not associate the address on the last things with the 
Mount of Olives (21:7). 

1 On the way into the city (Matt. 21:18-22); in the temple (21:23-23:39); 
leaving the temple (24:1-2); on the Mount of Olives (24:3-25:46). 


57 


The Passion Week 

The third day differs in a very distinctive manner 
from the first two in the character of its events. Palm 
Sunday and Monday were days of action — the Bethany 
demonstration and the cleansing of the temple. Al¬ 
though we were assured that “ all the multitude was as¬ 
tonished at his teaching ” (Mark 11:18b) and that “ the 
people all hung upon him, listening” (Luke 19:48b), 
nevertheless Jesus’ actual teachings hardly appeared. We 
had only isolated utterances growing out of some particu¬ 
lar situation like his reply to the protest of the Pharisees 
(Luke 19:49) and the chief priests (Matt. 21:16), his fore¬ 
cast of the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44), or his word 
in connection with the cleansing of the temple (Mark 
11:17). But on the third day action of a dramatic nature 
stops and the Jerusalem drama goes ahead by what is said 
rather than by what is done. 

Tuesday is characterized by debates, dialectic and dis¬ 
course. It is only on Tuesday, the last day in public, that 
Jesus’ Jerusalem message appears and that we are able to 
compare its general tone, character and substance with the 
Galilean message. Any change we find is in tone rather 
than in substance, for most of Jesus’ utterances on this last 
day come from scenes of bitter conflict with his Jerusalem 
opponents. In general, Jesus’ words in Jerusalem are more 
argumentative than his usual Galilean teachings, but this 
is the result of the changed and critical situation in which 
he finds himself rather than of any actual alteration in his 
thinking. 

58 


Tuesday 


It is strange that nearly all of Jesus’ utterances that 
may be classed as public message in the Holy City fall on 
this particular day of the passion week. It suggests some 
literary device and increases the skepticism of those who 
find Mark’s division into days mechanical and artificial. 
Nevertheless, we find similar concentration points for con¬ 
flicts and teachings in the Galilean story. (Matt. 5-7; 
Mark 2 .*1-3:6.) This piling-up of debate and discourse 
on Tuesday of the passion week is not a new feature in the 
Gospel story. What the Gospel writers, for the most part, 
assign to a special day came from different days and was 
intended to illustrate the nature of the debates and dis¬ 
courses on other or all of the days. At any rate, it is Mark’s 
Tuesday of the passion week that gives us the main body 
of Jesus’ public message in the Holy City. Some of the 
matter seems by its very nature to belong to it; other parts 
have no organic connection with just this stage in the de¬ 
velopment of the Jerusalem drama. 

We turn now to the materials themselves for we have 
seen enough already to realize that they are not only very 
extensive but very important. For all of their extent and 
importance the Fourth Gospel has not a single parallel to 
any of the matter which the first three Gospels associate 
with this day. 


59 


The Passion Week 

1. THE WITHERED FIG TREE . 

Matthew 21120 Mar\ 11:20-2i. 

This scene is virtually a repetition of the opening 
scene of the preceding day in Mark. It is morning; Jesus 
is on his way into the city; the withered fig tree is the cen¬ 
ter of interest. In Mark, then, twenty-four hours elapse 
between the cursing (11:12) and the discovery of the 
withered tree (11:20). Matthew, however, has joined 
the two separated parts of the story by having the tree 
wither on the spot, and the cursing and the comment 
form a single scene on the morning of the second day. 
(21:18-20.) 

2. FAITH IN GOD AND PRAYER . 

Matthew 21:2i-22. Mar\ 1 1:22-25. 

Luke, having omitted the cursing of the fig tree, nat¬ 
urally omits Jesus’ comments which Matthew and Mark 
associate with the withered tree. Jesus’ utterances here 
deal with the familiar themes of faith in God and prayer. 
However, they have no natural connection with the 
cursing of the fig tree in which Jesus did not pray and 
exhibited no special faith in God. Further, the mood and 
temper of these words are in utter discord with the nature 
of the preceding act. They are in no sense a natural out¬ 
growth of the curse. Rather they are in open conflict with 
it, and we cannot conceive of such words and such a curse 
crossing the lips of one and the same man. The associa¬ 
tion here is the work of Matthew and Mark who seem to 

60 




Tuesday 


add these exalted words on faith and prayer to explain 
the marvel on the fig tree. 

In this little group of utterances on faith and prayer we 
have another example of settingless sayings. They do not 
grow naturally out of their present associations. When 
and where Jesus spoke them we have no way of finding 
out. Some of them occur in wholly different settings. 
(Matt. 17:20; Luke 17:16; Matt. 6:14, 23b.) Both their 
theme and their treatment suggest Galilee rather than the 
tense, tragic days in the Holy City. The picture of the 
mountain by the sea is Galilean rather than Judean. 

It is only at this point that the distinctive features of 
Tuesday begin to appear — the series of five contentions 
of Jesus with his Jerusalem opponents. These five follow 
in rapid succession in all of the first three Gospels. All 
five are presented in the form of questions, the first four 
put to Jesus by his opponents; in the case of the fifth the 
tables are turned and Jesus puts a question to them. Mat¬ 
thew elaborates this series with two parables not found in 
Mark’s Gospel — the parable of the unlike sons and the 
parable of the marriage feast. Luke makes no important 
elaborations, but he leaves only a ragged remnant of the 
question on the great command which he used in a very 
different and much earlier connection. Through the con¬ 
tentions and addresses on this third day Luke follows 
the arrangement and account of Mark more closely 

61 


The Passion Week 

than at any other point in the whole of the passion 
week. 

As we have already noted, it is surprising that all of 
the Jerusalem conflicts fall on this one day. It would be 
more natural for them to appear on different days when¬ 
ever Jesus is confronted by his Jerusalem enemies. This 
grouping into a single series is neither a logical nor a 
chronological one. Only the first two contentions are of a 
critical character with a potential bearing on the fatal 
issue. The last three scenes are not critical, for little more 
than permissible difference of opinion is involved. Any 
careful reader of Mark would be skeptical of the series as 
a chronological arrangement. There are no evident ties 
within the series to form an actual temporal succession; 
there are no vital bonds of cause and effect to hold them 
together. 

Mark’s grouping of conflicts at this point is exactly 
like his treatment of the Galilean conflicts. With one ex¬ 
ception (7:1-23), he brought all of the Galilean conten¬ 
tions into a single series in 2:1-316 — a concentration of 
conflict scenes from all stages, early and late, of Jesus’ Gali¬ 
lean work. With the series Mark gave a clear illustration 
of the nature of the issue that existed between Jesus and 
his Galilean opponents. The same consideration will 
explain the concentration of the Jerusalem conflicts at this 
one point. As incidents of like character they would 
naturally tend to form a group, and with this group the 
nature of the issue between Jesus and his Jerusalem enemies 

62 


Tuesday 


would be made clear once for all. The only bond that 
holds the group together is topical — all are scenes of con¬ 
flict in the Holy City. 

We are not certain that even this elaborate series is 
complete. There is another conflict scene that may be¬ 
long to the group — the story of the adulteress in John 
7:53-8:11. It is not found in the first three Gospels except 
in a few manuscripts of Luke in which it is inserted after 
21:38. The incident by virtue of its loose location in the 
Fourth Gospel, its general character, the issue presented, 
the attitude of Jesus and his telling reply belongs to the 
story in the first three Gospels. The retreat to the Mount 
of Olives (8:1), the return to the temple in the morning, 
the whole situation would take it out of the Fourth Gospel 
and bring it into the Synoptic passion story. Some are in¬ 
clined to insert it between the second and third conten¬ 
tions, between Mark 12:17 and 12:18. 

The Jerusalem conflicts are of a very different char¬ 
acter from the Galilean contentions. (Mark 2:1-3:65 
7:1-23.) They are much more serious and critical. In the 
first two conflicts, the principal ones of the series, Jesus’ 
enemies are seeking a case against him. Jesus’ life is in 
danger. An ill-advised statement may be used as cause 
sufficient for prompt prosecution. In Galilee the situation 
was not so serious. Jesus was opposed because of the un¬ 
orthodoxy of his teaching and the unconventionality of 
his conduct. The Galilean case against Jesus could never 
in Jewish justice have resulted in his death. In Mark 

63 


The Passion Week 

2:1—3 : 5 Jesus has said or done nothing to warrant the plot 
against his life in 3:6 — a premature anticipation of the 
Jerusalem conspiracy. On the basis of the Galilean con¬ 
flicts about the only case that could be made against Jesus 
was that he was a non-conformist. 

The issues are different in Galilee and Jerusalem. In 
Galilee we met questions of the Jewish law and tradition, 
Jesus’ conduct on the Sabbath, his association with pub¬ 
licans and sinners, the matter of fasting and of the cere¬ 
monial washing of hands. In Jerusalem these issues do 
not appear and all the conflicts seem to center upon one act 
of Jesus — the cleansing of the temple. The act itself is 
not debated, unless it is in the first conflict, but it is the 
source of the bitter hatred that meets Jesus in all that fol¬ 
lows. The Galilean opposition was of a general nature, 
having to do with Jesus’ teaching and practice of religion. 
The Jerusalem opposition, however, is intensely personal; 
his enemies are bent on his destruction. 

In Galilee Jesus’ replies in conflict were statements of 
general principles, covering whole issues, yet they were 
decisive, settling the issue once for all. The Jerusalem 
contentions have to do less with general principles and 
center more on particular positions. The issues are more 
technical; there is more argumentation, more hair¬ 
splitting. Their successful issue depends more on the care¬ 
ful making of a point. Jesus’ replies are consequently 
more guarded, more evasive, often a refusal to commit 
himself. In critical cases Jesus throws his enemies into a 
64 


Tuesday 

dilemma. On both sides there is more parrying for posi¬ 
tion, more caution against the exposure of a vulnerable 
point. 

In the Galilean contentions we are impressed with the 
liberality and wholesomeness of Jesus’ conception and 
practice of religion. 2 In the Jerusalem contentions we 
are struck by Jesus’ intellectual resourcefulness, with 
his ability to meet his enemies on their own ground, 
with their own weapons and to defeat them in public 
encounter. 3 

Matthew and Luke follow the text of Mark very 
closely through these contentions. This is necessary, of 
course, because of the argumentative character of the mate¬ 
rials. The whole point to these scenes depends in each 
case on a careful preservation of exactly what is said. All 
of the first three Gospel writers seem to look upon these 
scenes as duels of wits. 

3. THE QUESTION OF JESUS' AUTHORITY (a). 
Matthew 21 .*23-27. Mar\ n 127-33. Lu\e 20:1-8. 

The scene of events for Tuesday now shifts to the 
temple which remains the principal scene for the day. 
Luke omitted the scenes on the way into the city on both 
the second and third days, the scenes associated with the 
fig tree. All of Luke’s parallels to Mark’s Tuesday have 
their scene here in the temple and there is no shift to the 
Mount of Olives as there is at the close of the day in Mat- 

2 Cf. Mark 2:17, 27; 3:4a. 3 Cf. Mark 11:30; 12:17a. 

65 


The Passion Week 

thew and Mark. We meet here, too, Luke’s only notice 
of time in his materials parallel to Mark’s first three days, 
“ on one of the days.” This is, of course, very indefinite 
and makes it clear to us how Luke’s calendar for the last 
week fades out. However, it is evident that Luke thinks 
of Jesus’ work in Jerusalem as very brief; he speaks of it 
in terms of days rather than of weeks. On the other hand, 
this indefinite notice seems to suggest a wider compass 
than the three brief public days in Mark. 

This first contention has to do with Jesus’ authority. 
“ By what authority doest thou these things ? or who gave 
thee this authority to do these things? ” (Mark 11:28). 
The authority for what things is not perfectly clear. The 
very framing of the question suggests some act by which 
Jesus has taken things into his own hands. The presence 
of the chief priests, the plot against Jesus’ life that they 
have made, would center the conflict on Jesus’ authority 
for cleansing the temple. 

Jesus replies with an ingenious counter-question. 
“ The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from 
men?” (Mark 11:30.) But the query arises, Is Jesus’ 
reply really an answer, or is he simply evasive and shrewd 
enough not to commit himself and yet throw his oppo¬ 
nents into a dilemma? Some regard Jesus’ counter¬ 
question as an answer. The Gospel writers, however, do 
not seem to be thinking of this possibility. Rather they 
picture in a graphic manner the embarrassment and con¬ 
fusion of Jesus’ adversaries. He has thrown them into a 

66 




Tuesday 


dilemma; they are not slow to see the point. To answer 
at all, they would commit themselves to condemnation. 
Consequently, they refuse to answer. That this reply 
of Jesus’ is not really an answer but a dilemma seems 
clearer still in the following contention in which his 
opponents come armed with a similar dilemma. (Mark 
I2:i4b-i5a.) Further, there is the evident delight of 
the Gospel writers in Jesus’ superiority in dialectic and 
repartee. 

The scene ends in a deadlock. Neither side has com¬ 
mitted itself. The authorities have not been able to ad¬ 
vance their case against Jesus. However, the tragedy has 
moved on a pace; the breach between Jesus and his enemies 
has widened. Subsequent events show the deadliness of 
their determination. They withdraw from this one en¬ 
counter, but they have not lost the battle. They have the 
power to carry out'’ their plot. They are simply awaiting 
the proper moment, seeking if possible a plausible case 
against him. They can wait; a little delay is not a great 
matter. 

The first contention scene is not over, for Jesus turns 
to attack his opponents in parable. Mark and Luke asso¬ 
ciate only one parable with this contention, the parable of 
the wicked husbandmen, to which they give a clear polem¬ 
ical point. (Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19.) Matthew, how¬ 
ever, arranges a series of three parables as a part of this 
first conflict — the parable of the unlike sons, the wicked 
husbandmen and the marriage feast — a veritable volley. 

67 


The Passion Week 

To all three Matthew gives a polemical point, still more 
uncovered and direct than in Mark and Luke. 4 

4. THE PARABLE OF THE TWO 
UNLIKE SONS. 

Matthew 21:28~32. 

This first parable in Matthew’s series is found only in 
his Gospel. In it two familiar themes of Jesus’ teaching 
appear — the doing of the divine will and the contrast 
between saying and doing. It recalls another word of 
Jesus’ found only in Matthew (23:3) directed against the 
scribes and Pharisees who “ say, and do not.” The parable 
has no necessary connection with the Jerusalem conflicts. 
Originally it was doubtless an isolated parable which Mat¬ 
thew commands at just this juncture because it lends itself 
to the making of a point against the Jerusalem adversaries. 

5. THE PARABLE OF THE 
WICKED HUSBANDMEN. 

Matthew 21.33-46. Mar\ 12:1-12. Lu\e 20:9-19. 

This is the only parable which Mark and Luke asso¬ 
ciate with this first contention. It is the second in Mat¬ 
thew’s series of three. There are only minor differences in 
details and development. 

This story of the wicked husbandmen is no longer 
pure parable with the point made through its principal 
thought. It is rather allegory with special meanings read 

4 Cf. Matt. 2i:3ib-32, 43, 45; 22:7, n-14. 


68 



Tuesday 


even into the details. It does not picture a natural and 
normal human situation, but presents a Christian interpre¬ 
tation of the religious history of Israel climaxing in the 
crucifixion of Jesus. They have rejected the chief stone 
of the corner and now they are rejected. 

The whole was written originally and read in the 
light of Jesus’ death and the Easter faith. If there was 
some original utterance of Jesus out of which this passage 
grew, we have no way of determining exactly what it was. 
It does not fit itself naturally into any polemic uttered by 
Jesus during the brief and critical Jerusalem days. 

The passage ends with a fresh determination of Jesus’ 
enemies to take him, but public favor protects him. In all 
probability the Jerusalem authorities did not dare take 
Jesus openly. It may be that they would have been unable 
to do so. When they do take him, it is with great secrecy 
and quick action. 

With this parable the first contention scene ends in 
Mark and Luke. Jesus’ enemies depart. Matthew, how¬ 
ever, has a third parable to add to this first conflict. Con¬ 
sequently, he notes no shift of scene or audience at the 
close of this passage. 

6. THE PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE FEAST . 
Matthew 22:1-14. 

Luke has substantially this same parable of Jesus 
(14:16-24), but it is far removed from any association with 
the passion week. He includes it near the middle of the 

69 


The Passion Week 

long section of his Gospel which he devotes to the journey 
to Jerusalem. (9:51-19:28.) It is the last of a series of 
three table talks which Luke arranges in 14:1-24. 

The two forms of this parable in Matthew and Luke 
are so different that they have really only general features 
and framework in common. They differ greatly in devel¬ 
opment, details and treatment. Matthew’s parable is in no 
sense a unity. The conclusion about the man with the 
wedding garment (11-14) is a later appendix not found in 
Luke’s form. The two parts (1-10 and n-14) were origi¬ 
nally perhaps separate and distinct parables that began 
very much alike. If we use verse 2 a second time and 
read it just ahead of 11-14, we get a second complete para¬ 
ble. Luke’s form of the parable is nearer some probable 
utterance of Jesus. Matthew’s form is completely Chris¬ 
tianized and is in no sense an organic part of the Jerusa¬ 
lem events. 

7. THE QUESTION OF THE 
TRIBUTE MONEY (b). 

Matthew 22:15-22. Marl^ 12:13-17. Lu\e 20:20-26. 

This is the second of the Jerusalem conflicts and there 
seems to be some logical connection between it and the 
first. The whole situation here seems to presuppose previ¬ 
ous futile attempts to ensnare Jesus. In fact, the dilemma 
with which they approach Jesus recalls at once the fact that 
he has just defeated his enemies with a similar dilemma. 
They turn his own weapon upon him. This would seem 

70 


Tuesday 


to indicate that these first two conflicts, at least, belong to¬ 
gether. However, this natural bond has been broken in 
Mark and Luke by the insertion of the parable of the 
wicked husbandmen. In Matthew the breach is still wider 
with three parables intervening. 

The chief priests do not appear in this scene, but the 
Pharisees and the Herodians appear as their agents. Luke 
mentions neither party but speaks of their agents as 
“ spies.” The plan of the opponents is to catch Jesus in his 
talk. Luke adds that they intend to denounce him before 
the Roman governor. Their opening parry is a psycho¬ 
logical ruse intended to throw Jesus off his guard and to 
induce him to give a direct answer. “ Teacher, we know 
that thou art true, and carest not for any one; for thou re- 
gardest not the person of men, but of a truth teachest the 
way of God.” (Mark 12:20.) Independent of how it was 
meant, the statement presents a really discriminating char¬ 
acterization of certain phases of Jesus’ personality. 

Without a halt they launch their dilemma, so framed 
as to force Jesus to commit himself one way or the other: 
“ Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not ? ” It re¬ 
mains a single theoretical question in Matthew and Luke, 
but Mark adds a second question which makes it a practi¬ 
cal, patriotic issue: “ Shall we give, or shall we not give ? ” 
An affirmative answer will threaten his present public fa¬ 
vor; a negative answer will expose him to the Romans. 
The dilemma is very cleverly put. Then follows a dra¬ 
matic piece of dialectic. 


7i 


The Passion Week 

“ Bring me a denarius.” 

They brought it. 

“ Whose is this image and superscription ? ” 
w ‘ Caesar’s.” 

“ Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and 
unto God the things that are God’s.” 

In the first contention the opponents refused to answer 
Jesus’ dilemma, and the Gospel writers delight in the fact 
that Jesus answers their dilemma, however, eluding their 
ingenious pitfall. 

Jesus’ reply has become a famous axiom. Some find 
here a complete separation of religion and politics; others 
find just the opposite. But it is the cautious, non-commit¬ 
tal character of the statement that is its real point and that 
admits of such a double interpretation. Jesus is not saying 
whether the affairs of religion and those of the state 
conflict or coincide. He is simply evading a dangerous 
dilemma. It is a reply that gives no real answer. We may 
not legitimately extend its meaning beyond the critical 
situation in which it was spoken. This subtle statement 
belongs to the Jerusalem conflicts, not to the fields of politi¬ 
cal and ecclesiastical theory. From it we may not extract 
social programs and policies. Jesus’ attitude on the rela¬ 
tion of church and state may not be determined in the 
light of a single special statement but in the light of the 
total temper of his mind according to which no human in¬ 
terest is exempt from a solemn religious obligation of man 
to his Maker. 


72 




Tuesday 


The second of the Jerusalem conflicts ends as did the 
first — at the expense of Jesus’ opponents. He is more 
than their match in quickness of wits. His statements 
have a subtle polemical point. He does not commit him¬ 
self. His enemies make no progress in securing what 
might be used as a popular or legal case against him. But 
the fatal breach that began with the cleansing of the tem¬ 
ple is widened. Each encounter augments the determina¬ 
tion of the Jerusalem opposition. 


As we noted earlier, these first two conflicts are the 
most critical of the series of five. They involve issues in 
which an ill-advised statement could be used publicly or 
legally against Jesus. In the last three conflicts, now fol¬ 
lowing in rapid succession, no such critical issues are in¬ 
volved. They could not furnish any real case against Jesus 
in Jewish or Roman court. They have more of the char¬ 
acter of theological controversies in which differences of 
opinion could have no serious consequences. 

8. THE QUESTION OF THE 
RESURRECTION (c). 

Matthew 22:23~33- Mar\ 12:18-27. Lu\e 20 127-38. 

This third contention introduces a new party into the 
Jerusalem conflicts, the Sadducees. In this series of five 
the first three Gospel writers seem interested in providing 
the most varied and colorful array of parties over against 

73 


The Passion Week 

Jesus — the chief priests, Pharisees, Herodians, Sadducees, 
scribes and lawyers. The Sadducees are introduced as 
though their distinctive feature were their denial of the 
resurrection. They were not, however, a philosophical- 
theological, but an ecclesiastical-political party. They had 
surrendered the messianic hope; consequently, they fa¬ 
vored the adoption of Hellenistic culture and cooperation 
with Roman rule. 

They approach Jesus with a proposition that is calcu¬ 
lated to render the belief in the resurrection absurd and 
ridiculous — a childless woman who, according to ancient 
law, becomes the wife of seven brothers as they die off one 
after the other. In Mark and Luke it is a purely hypo¬ 
thetical proposition, a sort of stock-in-trade argument 
against the belief in the resurrection. In Matthew, how¬ 
ever, they speak as though they had a special concrete 
case in mind, “ Now there were with us seven brethren.” 

The reply of Jesus has nothing characteristic, certainly 
nothing distinctive about it. The whole scene is unim¬ 
pressive and unconvincing. It has no natural or necessary 
place here in the Jerusalem conflicts. It exhibits no spe¬ 
cial enmity or bitterness of feeling and cannot have had 
any causal bearing on the fatal outcome. The same is true 
of the two encounters that follow. 


74 


Tuesday 


9. THE QUESTION CONCERNING THE 
GREAT COMMAND (d). 

Matthew 22:34-40. Mar\ 12:28-34. 20:39-40. 

This is the fourth of the Jerusalem contentions in 
Matthew and Mark. Luke, however, has taken it from 
this late place in the Gospel story and has used it as a set¬ 
ting for his parable of the good Samaritan. (10:25-28, 
36-37.) The key utterance of the passage, the one great 
commandment, Luke puts on the lips of the lawyer while 
in Matthew and Mark it is a word of Jesus. Matthew 
greatly abbreviates the Markan form by omitting the sec¬ 
ond half of the passage. 

In Mark the scribe’s question is honest and open with 
no insidious intent, and Jesus gives a frank answer that 
seems to satisfy him. Matthew, however, places him in 
the array of Jerusalem antagonists; he is a lawyer repre¬ 
senting the assembled Pharisees. Luke’s lawyer is also try¬ 
ing Jesus, but he puts a very different question, “ Teacher, 
what shall I do to inherit eternal life? ” (10:25.) This 
was the question of the rich young ruler in another connec¬ 
tion. 5 But the question in Matthew and Mark, “ What 
commandment is the first of all ? ” does not suggest an 
insidious intent. Any Jewish teacher might give his opin¬ 
ion without evasion and without involving himself. With 
a total of 365 prohibitions and 248 commandments it was a 
rather pertinent question. 

Jesus’ reply is genuinely prophetic. He begins with 

6 Matt. 19:16; Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18. 


75 


The Passion Week 

Israel’s great confession of faith, the Shema (Deut. 6:4-5) 
and he ends with the heart of the book of Leviticus 
(19:18). From the great mass of legal matter in his peo¬ 
ple’s religion he singles out the two great sentences, its 
basal precepts on religion as reverence and righteousness. 
The first is not a theoretical and formal confession to 
Israel’s monotheism but a practical personal conviction of 
each loyal Jew. The second is Israel’s great social sentence, 
and in the history of Christianity it has almost obscured 
the first. 6 There is a Galilean echo in Jesus’ word here. 
It recalls certain of the passages of the Sermon on the 
Mount. 

Such attempts to summarize the essential substance of 
the law and the prophets were not new. The Jewish 
Rabbis generally were interested in just such. But it is in¬ 
teresting to note the sureness with which Jesus here singles 
out the very heart of his people’s piety. Whether he was 
the first to strike upon this summary we cannot say. The 
important item is that we find it in his thinking at all. 
Such a passage makes a substantial contribution to our 
knowledge of Jesus but it does not aid materially our 
understanding of the Jerusalem tragedy that is soon to 
come. 

6 Cf. Rom. 13:8 ff; Gal. 5:14; Jas. 2:8; Did. 1:2. 


76 


Tuesday 


io. THE QUESTION OF DAVID'S MESSIAH (e). 
Matthew 22:41-46. Mar\ 12:35-37. Lu\e 20:41-44. 

In each of the first four contentions Jesus was ap¬ 
proached with a question. At the close of the preceding 
scene Mark and Luke told us of their abandonment of this 
method against him. It yields no usable material and pro¬ 
ceeds at their expense. “ And no man after that durst ask 
him any question.” (Mark 12:34; c f- Matt. 22:46.) In 
this fifth and last verbal conflict Jesus turns on his op¬ 
ponents with a question. He swings over from defense 
to offense. But the aggression here loses its force through 
the purely academic character of the question. 

Of the five conflicts this last is the least impressive. 
Not only the method of the reasoning but the subject 
matter makes one skeptical. Jesus is here represented as 
provoking public discussion of a theme and suggestion, the 
messianic issue, which otherwise in the first three Gos¬ 
pels he suppresses both in public and in private. The 
reasoning here is unlike anything that we meet elsewhere 
in the religious thinking of Jesus. Usually we see Jesus in 
his use of the Old Testament pressing his way directly to 
the religious heart of a passage. But here his use of Psalm 
110:1 is technical and professional. In his use of the Old 
Testament in the preceding conflict Jesus appeared as a 
prophet, but here he is a schoolman. The argumentation 
is too Rabbinical, too subtle, too delicately membered. 
The terms are too carefully defined to be characteristic of 
Jesus. We do not find Jesus elsewhere insisting on such 

77 


The Passion Week 

hair-splitting discriminations, reading special meanings 
into particular words. The passage makes no real contri¬ 
bution to our knowledge of Jesus or of the progress of the 
Jerusalem events. 

n. THE ADDRESS AGAINST THE SCRIBES 
AND PHARISEES. 

Matthew 23:1-39. Mar\ 12138-40. Lu\e 20145-47. 

Tuesday of the passion week has been so eventful that 
we almost forget Mark’s calendar of days. Thus far it has 
been taken up with the scene on the way into the city with 
Jesus’ comments in connection with the withered fig tree 
and the series of five contentions in the temple. One prin¬ 
cipal feature of the day still remains — the two great dis¬ 
courses, the last utterances of Jesus in public. This is true 
of Matthew only, for Mark and Luke have only one great 
address on Tuesday evening, the address on the last things 
with which Matthew also closes the day. 

At this point Matthew introduces a long discourse of 
Jesus, a scathing denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees 
whom Matthew has held in assembly during the last two 
conflicts. (22:34, 4 1 -) This address consumes the whole 
of Matthew’s chapter 23 and is one of the longest ascribed 
to Jesus. At this same point Mark (12:38-40) and Luke 
(20:45-47) a ^ so h ave J esus turn on scribes with a very 
cutting criticism, but in both it is just a brief utterance, a 
simple statement within the compass of a single sentence. 
The utterance is too brief in Mark and Luke to merit the 
78 


Tuesday 


name of an address. In a much earlier connection Luke 
reported substantially the same address that Matthew here 
reports — a series of denunciatory woes. (Luke 11:37~54.) 
Matthew’s address, as well as that of Luke, consists chiefly 
of this series of woes, but Matthew greatly extends the ad¬ 
dress with other utterances of a denunciatory character. 

This address has created problems both for Christians 
and for Jews. Both have been sensitive to the bitter harsh¬ 
ness of these charges. Christians have sought to save the 
character of Jesus; Jews, the reputation of their religious 
leaders. The general disposition is to exonerate Jesus of 
these charges and the Pharisees of these vices at the ex¬ 
pense of primitive Christianity and the prophetic strain in 
Jesus’ personality. 

Neither Christians nor Jews have been Jewish enough 
in their approach to this bitter denunciation. We have 
here essentially a Jewish situation — a Jewish prophet in 
combat with the forces of organized religion, by no means 
a new situation in the history of the Jewish people. Cer¬ 
tain utterances may have been sharpened by later Christian 
bitterness, but in its general theme and tone the address is 
genuinely Jewish and prophetic. This type of attack on 
ingenuine religion goes back to the earliest prophets. The 
speech is no more uncontrolled in utterance and spirit than 
many passages in the prophetic writings. Jesus does not 
discriminate less nor does he generalize more than do the 
sixth- and eighth-century prophets when they hurl their 
sweeping charges against some class of their contempo- 

79 


The Passion Week 

raries or against the whole nation. The prophet is never 
pedant enough to note all exceptions, nor even the fact 
that the things he is denouncing are exceptions rather than 
the general rule. 

Neither Jews nor Christians will find this address 
pleasant to their peculiar palates, but both must remember 
that the prophet is not always a pleasant person and that 
his popularity, if any, is usually short-lived for the very 
reason that his task, as he feels it upon himself, is not to be 
pleasant but to preach his message. We may prefer the 
prophet in his more pleasant moments, but if he has only 
pleasant moments and gentle gestures, he is not a real 
prophet, a Jewish prophet true to the type. Once we sense 
the genius of the prophet, the promptness and force of his 
reactions, we shall not think of asking whether all of these 
things were really true of all the scribes and Pharisees. 
Allowing for certain invasions from a later Christian situa¬ 
tion, we may leave the address as Jesus’ very own without 
compromising his character or that of the Pharisees as a 
class. 

To what extent these bitter utterances figured in the 
Jerusalem drama and its development we are not in a posi¬ 
tion to say. The utterance in Mark and Luke is too brief 
to have made any great contribution. Matthew, however, 
seems to have attached more importance to it at this point. 
The very space he devotes to it would indicate this. “ This 
bitter tirade of Jesus at the close of the Jerusalem conflicts 
explains the hatred discharged in the passion story 
80 


Tuesday 


proper.” 7 But this hatred in the trial and death scenes 
appears in Mark and Luke as well as in Matthew. 

12. THE WIDO W'S MITES. 

Mar\ 12:41-44. Lu\e 2111-4. 

Matthew omits this charming little story. Just why, 
we do not know unless his interest is so commanded by his 
great discourse section in chapters 23, 24 and 25 that he 
simply passes over it to avoid an interruption. Mark and 
Luke report the story in the same place and in practically 
the same words. 

The whole scene is an observation of Jesus and his dis¬ 
ciples who watch the poor widow’s pantomime, for she 
speaks not a word and seems wholly unconscious of the 
presence or observation of others. The story is all the 
more impressive because she has two mites; she might 
have retained one for herself. Jesus’ comment on her 
deed is a paradox, and it recalls certain of his words in the 
Sermon on the Mount which judge acts by inner motive 
and purpose rather than by outward expression. Jesus 
seems to set a holy seal on every worthy impulse that in¬ 
spires men, no matter how small, how insignificant its 
expression. 

7 J. Weiss, Die Schrijten des Neuen Testaments, I 180. 


81 


The Passion Week 

13. THE PROPHECY OF THE DESTRUCTION 
OF THE TEMPLE. 

Matthew 24:1-2. Mar\ 13:1-2. Lu\e 21:5-6. 

In Matthew this passage is simply a transition from 
the address against the scribes and Pharisees (23) to the 
address on the last things (24-25). In Mark and Luke no 
such long address precedes and this passage furnishes a 
natural swing from the story of the widow in the temple to 
a setting and occasion for the long address on the last 
things that follows. In Matthew and Mark Jesus is leav¬ 
ing the temple. In Luke, however, the temple remains the 
scene for all that has preceded and for all that follows on 
this day. In Matthew and Mark Jesus’ forecast is in pri¬ 
vate; in Luke it seems to be generally public. 

The genuineness of this word of Jesus has been de¬ 
bated, but some such statement of Jesus must have had 
currency in earliest Christian circles. One such figures in 
the false witness in the Jewish trial in Matthew (26:61) 
and Mark (14:58) and in the taunts at the cross in both 
(Matt. 27:39-40; Mark 15:29-30). It is not this word but 
another which has to do with Jesus destroying the temple 
and building it again in three days. The Fourth Gospel 
puts it on the lips of Jesus (2:19) with a special interpreta¬ 
tion of his body as the temple that will rise after three 
days. In the charges against Stephen (Acts 2:13-14) we 
read that he is reported to have said that “ this Jesus of 
Nazareth shall destroy this place.” 


82 


Tuesday 

14. THE ADDRESS ON THE LAST THINGS. 
Matthew 24:3-25:46. Mar\ 13:3-37. Lu\e 21:7-36. 

We come now to the closing incident of Tuesday of 
the passion week, the last great address ascribed to Jesus 
in the first three Gospels. We recall that Matthew re¬ 
ported another long address on this day, against the scribes 
and Pharisees, while Mark and Luke had only a single 
simple statement. In Matthew and Mark we have the 
final shift of scene on this third day, from the temple to 
the Mount of Olives overlooking the city. In Luke the 
scene remains the temple, as it has been for all of his mat¬ 
ter parallel to Mark’s Tuesday of the passion week. Luke 
did not have Jesus leaving the temple in the preceding pas¬ 
sage. (21:5~6.) Mark has the address delivered to a very 
limited group, the four fisherman disciples first called in 
1:16-20. Matthew has all of the disciples. (24:3.) Luke 
has an indefinite “ they,” the temple public, but the very 
character of the materials in his address shows that it is 
intended for intimate followers. 

All three Gospel writers report the address at just this 
point. Luke, however, reported another form in a much 
earlier connection. (17:20-37.) Matthew’s form of the 
address here is twice as long as that of Mark and Luke due 
to the fact that he combines the main body of the Markan 
materials with materials that parallel Luke’s first form 
(17:20-37), and to this combined form he adds materials 
found only in his Gospel or out of all association with 
either form of this address in Luke. (Matt. 24:43-25:46.) 

83 


The Passion Week 

This is the longest single address that Mark puts on 
the lips of Jesus, almost the whole of chapter 13. The 
Markan addresses otherwise are only a few verses in 
length. The theme of the address is one quite common in 
the religious thinking of ancient peoples — the collapse of 
the present world-order and the appearance of a new, 
ideal age and condition that will realize all elemental 
human hopes. 

The general framework of the picture is Jewish. In 
its detail it has now no natural literary or logical unity. 
The whole leaves the impression that it was written to be 
read rather than delivered by Jesus, any Christian or Jew, 
orally. Certainly this chapter of Mark has had a history. 
In its thought the address presents a composite body of 
matter with three very different and distinct strains. First, 
some passages are wholly Jewish, of Jewish extraction and 
origin. Second, a very few passages suggest the style and 
thought of Jesus. Third, other passages are the products of 
later Christian experience and adversity. But all this mat¬ 
ter, whether of Jewish origin or genuine words of Jesus, 
appears here under Christian adoption. Much of it repre¬ 
sents a common ground on which apocalyptic Judaism, 
Jesus and primitive Christianity stood. 

No address ascribed to Jesus is stranger to us to-day, 
more foreign to our modern feeling and faith. No ad¬ 
dress put on his lips in the first three Gospels contains 
fewer of his genuine words. Yet the whole pictures an 
atmosphere as old as the book of Daniel and that fed 
84 



Tuesday 


Jewish minds and hearts in Jesus’ own day. He himself 
breathed this atmosphere deep and strong as we see in 
numerous utterances outside of this particular section. His 
followers, for a generation at least, held firmly to this 
fantastic picture in which the returning and triumphant 
Jesus was the central figure. But the address, as a whole 
or in part, is not an integral element in the Jerusalem 
drama that cost Jesus his life. 

15. JESUS LODGES OUTSIDE THE CITY . 

Lu\e 21:37-38. 

With this notice Luke gives us a sort of survey of 
Jesus’ activity during the passion week — the days spent 
teaching in the temple, a repetition of 19:47a, and the 
nights spent outside the city, a notice that we met earlier in 
Mark (11:19). Luke has not distinguished these public 
days one from the other as Mark has, yet even here we feel 
that something is over, a turn of events is coming, and 
Luke summarizes here on all that has taken place thus far 
in the Holy City. 

It is interesting to note that Luke mentions the Mount 
of Olives as the lodging place of Jesus. Bethany is associ¬ 
ated with only one incident in Luke’s passion story, the 
pilgrim demonstration on Palm Sunday. In Matthew and 
Mark Bethany stands out as the lodging place of Jesus. 
Nights he retreats thither; there he is anointed on 
Wednesday. 

Only on the last night do we find Jesus within the city 

85 


The Passion Week 

walls, at the supper table, and this scene is followed by a 
retreat to Gethsemane. Why did Jesus retreat from the 
city each evening ? Are these retreats just circumstantial, 
or are they a part of the passion drama ? Some think that 
Jesus retreated each night out of consideration for his own 
personal safety. In Bethany the high authorities would 
not have him within such ready reach. Others think that 
purely personal reasons took him to Bethany. There was 
a friendly home there that offered him hospitality during 
the feast. Still others are of the opinion that these retreats 
are purely circumstantial. Thousands of pilgrims came 
up to the Holy City for its festivals, and especially for the 
Passover. Josephus tells us that all could not be accom¬ 
modated within the city and its surrounding villages and 
that many were forced to spend the nights in the open. In 
Matthew and Mark we might think that Jesus and his 
group could not find accommodations within the city itself 
but were able to do so in Bethany. In Luke, however, we 
might think that Jesus and his disciples, like many others 
perhaps, spent the nights in the open on the Mount of 
Olives. 


At last the third day of the passion week comes to a 
close. With this one day the first three Gospel writers 
have associated the great body of materials on Jesus’ public 
work in Jerusalem. It has been chiefly a day of verbal 
combat with Jesus’ enemies seeking to involve him in 
86 



Tuesday 


delicate discussions that might furnish a case against him. 
This ruse has not been successful, and the day closes with 
Jesus a victor over his opponents. He has been prudent in 
his statements, but he has made no concessions or com¬ 
promises. The embarrassment of his enemies is clear on 
the following day. It is only with an unexpected turn of 
events, the appearance of a traitor from within Jesus’ own 
trusted group, that the Jerusalem authorities take the defi¬ 
nite steps that lead to the abrupt and catastrophic end. 

The public ministry of Jesus is over. The first three 
days in the Holy City — Sunday, Monday, Tuesday — 
were in public. The three days left — Wednesday, Thurs¬ 
day, Friday — are taken up for the most part with private 
and intimate scenes. The passion story proper, the rapid 
culmination of the drama, is ready to begin. 


87 





I 




- bit, -- di 





CHAPTER IV 


WEDNESDAY 


WEDNESDAY 




o 

X: 

vo 

°0 

• • 

I>N 


<D 

G 


V 


C* 

<N 


>*? 

CO 


* V ? T 

03 M CO O 

S * M 


> CO VO 

t> lO\ M M 

<L> I I I 

M VO 4 


aj 


VO 

c* 


aJ 

to 

4 -J 

to 

<L> 

Vh 

Pu 


<L> •“ 

15 >> 

n c 

« w 
f-fl o 

^ CQ 

M—I 

° .fl 

u 

aj 


bfl 

G 


■* »—» ^ 

Oh C 
to 


CO 

G 

to 
<D 
—*\ 

to 

K*~> 

aj 


G 

O 


<U 

PQ 


o 

_ G 
O < CO 
<u aj 

jg m ^ 

H H £ 


cn 


• 

in 

• 


1 

CO 

CS 

t^s 

1 



w 

rs 

M 

<s 

ro 

M 

M 

M 

G 

a 

G 

43 

43 

43 

O 

o 

o 


h “' 


c3 

& 

o 


m (S rr> 






JL HE fourth day of the passion week is very clearly set 
off in Mark 14:1-11. This passage is very brief in view of 
the long section devoted to the preceding day, Tuesday. 
In Mark and Matthew (26:1-16) the day includes three 
incidents — the conspiracy of the chief priests, the anoint¬ 
ing in Bethany and the betrayal by Judas. In Luke 22:1-6 
only the first and third incidents remain. The anointing 
Luke does not associate with this day or with the passion 
week at all. He reported it as a part of his Galilean story. 
(7:36-50.) Luke’s account of the events of Wednesday is 
more natural than that of Matthew and Mark, for the story 
of the anointing really interrupts the natural connection 
between the plot and the appearance of Judas. In Luke 
these two passages stand immediately together without 
break. Mark 14:1-2 and 10-11 belong together and 
should be read together as a continuous narrative; also 
Matthew 26:1-5 and 14-16. The anointing does not neces¬ 
sarily belong to this day as Matthew and Mark report 
it. If we are to include it in this particular day, it should 
be made to precede the plot in Mark 14:1-2 or to fol¬ 
low the appearance of Judas in 14:10-11. It should not 
intervene. 

In Matthew and Mark this day is spent in private. 

9i 


The Passion Week 

Jesus and his disciples are in Bethany. There is no visit to 
the city itself as on the first three days. Luke gives us no 
hint as to the exact whereabouts of Jesus on this particular 
day. The last we heard was of nightly retreats to the 
Mount of Olives. (21:37-38.) In Luke’s briefer account 
of the day Jesus does not appear as a speaker or actor, and 
the drama in all three Gospels moves ahead not by what 
Jesus says and does but by the plot of his enemies and the 
betrayal by one of his trusted disciples. It is at this point 
that the passion story proper begins. Montefiore, from the 
liberal Jewish point of view, remarks that it “ is not only 
told with consummate distinction and beauty, but gives 
the impression of well-ordered narrative.” 1 

1. THE CONSPIRACY OF THE CHIEF PRIESTS. 
Matthew 26:1-5. Mar\ 14:1-2. Lu\e 22:1-2. 

With Mark 14:1 we are two days before the Passover, 
thus, on Wednesday. This Markan notice Matthew 
(26:1) converts into a word of Jesus for the sake of a final 
forecast of the fatal outcome. Luke as usual shows no 
interest in the exact day and simply remarks that the 
Passover is nigh. (22:1.) This dating has caused a great 
deal of debate among critics relative to the date of Jesus’ 
death. In all four Gospels Jesus dies on a Friday. His 
body is taken down from the cross and hastily laid in a 
nearby tomb in order that the approaching Sabbath may 

1 The Synoptic Gospels, I 307. Reprinted by permission of The Macmillan 
Company. 

92 


Wednesday 

not be defiled. In the first three Gosepls Jesus seems to die 
on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, having 
eaten the Passover meal with his disciples on Thursday 
evening which was the beginning of the Jewish Friday. 
The Fourth Gospel, however, has Jesus die a day earlier, 
on the fourteenth of the Jewish month of Nisan instead of 
the fifteenth as in the first three Gospels. In the Fourth 
Gospel Jesus and his disciples do not eat the Passover but 
have a private supper on the last night, twenty-four hours 
in advance. 

The crucifixion on the feast day as reported by the first 
three Gospels creates all sorts of difficulties and improba¬ 
bilities. The arrest, the assembly and death-sentence of 
the Jewish legal body, the execution — all would defile 
this holiest of festivals. Both Jews and Romans, who were 
careful not to offend unnecessarily Jewish religious senti¬ 
ment, would make themselves and the day unclean. Con¬ 
sequently a number of scholars, who otherwise have a 
pronounced preference for the first three Gospels, reject 
their dating of Jesus’ death in favor of the Fourth Gospel, 
according to which Jesus is arrested, tried and put to death 
before the beginning of the feast proper. Those who re¬ 
tain the dating of the first three Gospels point out the the¬ 
ological program of the Fourth Gospel’s date: Jesus is 
made to die on the day when the Passover lamb was slain, 
thus becoming the ultimate sacrifice, the Lamb of God 
offered up once for all, the eternal Passover. 

The problem of the date of Jesus’ death will remain 

93 


The Passion Week 

unsolved unless new light comes to our aid. The dating in 
the first three Gospels has great difficulties to overcome, 
but the very considerations used against it may be the 
best evidence of its truth and reliability. Could the tradi¬ 
tion of Jesus’ death on this great and holy day have ever 
originated and survived if it had been false ? The earliest 
Christian tradition has Jesus eating the Passover on the 
last night, arrested, tried, put to death and his body laid in 
a tomb before the close of the first day of this Jewish 
feast. It is difficult to account for the irregularities, but it 
is even more difficult to explain the rise of a false dating. 
The Fourth Evangelist writes at a much later date when 
theological ventures were possible and, after having seen 
him take so many liberties with the story of Jesus, the 
matter of his death a day in advance of that given in the 
first three Gospels is not surprising. We have no way of 
gauging the feeling of Jesus’ enemies in their death- 
sentence upon him, but it must have been exceedingly 
bitter in the closing scenes. Jesus may have been the vic¬ 
tim of religious fanaticism. It may have been a case of the 
old axiom, “ The better the day, the better the deed.” Ex¬ 
traordinary circumstances may have required extraordi¬ 
nary measures. 2 

Turning to the conspiracy itself, we see that Mark 
does not represent the chief priests and scribes as in formal 
session; they come to an informal yet very definite deter¬ 
mination upon Jesus’ death. According to Matthew, how- 

2 Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I 314. 


94 


Wednesday 

ever, the authorities are in official session with formal 
legal action against Jesus. Luke’s notice of the conspir¬ 
acy here is not different from earlier plans and plots. 
(19:4713-48.) Also he shows no interest in their motives 
and cautions. 

Whether the consideration of the chief priests ex¬ 
presses a motive or a caution is not clear. “ Not during 
the feast, lest haply there be a tumult of the people.” If 
it is a motive, fearing that trouble will be started by Jesus 
or his followers, then they plan to do away with him be¬ 
fore the feast. Prompt action will nip any plans in the 
bud. If it expresses a caution, then they are thinking that 
his arrest might cause a revolt among the people. Their 
caution, too, may include a consideration for the sacred¬ 
ness of the festival which must not be defiled by arrests, 
trials and executions. Some think that the chief priests 
intend to wait until the feast is past and the pilgrims are 
dispersed to their homes. “ But meanwhile something 
happened which hastened Jesus’ arrest and death ” 3 — 
the appearance of Judas, which should follow at once 
upon this scene in Matthew and Mark as it does in Luke. 

In the Fourth Gospel this plot is not a part of the 
last six days. (11:47-53.) It precedes by a number of 
days at least the anointing in Bethany (12:1-8) and the 
triumphal entry into the Holy City (12:12-19). The 
Fourth Evangelist agrees with the first in having a formal 
session and decision of the chief priests; also he names 

3 Klausner, Jesus of Narareth, p. 324. 


95 


The Passion Week 

Caiaphas as the high priest, but presents him as the 
principal instigator against Jesus’ life. The motive of 
the conspiracy is also different in the Fourth Gospel. It 
grows out of Jesus’ wonder-works, especially the raising 
of Lazarus. (11:1-44.) In the Fourth Gospel Caiaphas 
acts on grounds of political prudence and expediency; it is 
better for one man to die than for a whole people to perish. 

This plot against Jesus is final in the first three Gos¬ 
pels. It results in his death two days later, but it seems to 
have owed its success to unexpected aid from an unex¬ 
pected quarter — to an act of betrayal by one of Jesus’ inti¬ 
mate and trusted followers. 

2. THE ANOINTING IN BETHANY . 

Matthew 26:6-13. Mar\ 14:3-9. 

The correct location of the story of the anointing 
of Jesus is uncertain. Matthew and Mark include it at 
this point as the principal event of the fourth day of the 
passion week. It may have belonged to this day, but in 
its present place it interrupts the natural progress of the 
narrative in both Matthew and Mark — the plot of the 
chief priests and the appearance of Judas which belong 
immediately together. The uncertainty of the story’s 
proper location is increased by the other two Gospel 
writers. The Fourth Evangelist keeps the anointing in 
the Jerusalem days and in Bethany, but he has it come six 
days before the Passover instead of two days before as it 
does in Matthew and Mark. Fie also has it precede the tri- 

96 


Wednesday 

umphal entry by a day, while in the first and second Gos¬ 
pels it comes on Wednesday following Palm Sunday. 
(John 12:1-8,12-19.) Luke’s account is still more confus¬ 
ing, for he assigns the incident to the Galilean story in 
which it is far removed from any association with the vil¬ 
lage of Bethany and the passion week. (7:36-50.) 

Just when and where the anointing took place we can¬ 
not say. The interruption in Mark’s story at this point, 
between 14:1-2 and 10-n, makes it clear that it is an inser¬ 
tion. It is the dramatic quality of the incident apparently 
that appeals to Mark and that leads him to insert it at just 
this point. The story is beautiful in its sentiment and 
setting. It serves as an impressive prologue that sets the 
theme and tone for the drama that follows. At this point 
at least we meet Mark in the role of a dramatist. 

The account of the anointing is very much the same 
in both Matthew and Mark. The scene is set in Bethany 
in the house of Simon the leper. The woman who anoints 
Jesus is unnamed, a rather strange fact when we consider 
the closing comment of Jesus about the permanent memo¬ 
rial to her. No reflection is cast on the woman’s character. 
She is not a penitent person but one who pays a personal 
tribute in honor of the Master. She anoints Jesus’ head. 
The indefinite “ some ” who make the invidious remark 
about the waste of the ointment in the second Gospel be¬ 
come “ the disciples ” in Matthew. Mark estimates the 
worth of the ointment around three hundred shillings; 
Matthew says simply “ much.” The entire scene pictures 

97 


The Passion Week 

an extravagance, but the very temper of the story makes 
the reader feel that it is wholly appropriate. 

Just what Jesus’ words were on this occasion we have 
no way of finding out. The utterances ascribed to him are 
of Christian origin. They are framed to fit their present 
position as a sort of introduction to the passion drama. If 
they are based on any statements of his, later Christian 
interpretation obscures their true sense. This tribute Jesus 
may have let pass without comment as he did the cries of 
the crowds on Palm Sunday. 

Luke’s account of the anointing of Jesus (7:36-50) 
is wholly different, so different in fact that the anointing 
itself might just as well drop out. In Matthew and Mark 
the entire interest centers on Jesus; it is Christocentric. It 
is a personal tribute to Jesus and it is associated with his 
approaching suffering and death. In Luke, however, the 
idea of a tribute falls into the background and none of 
Jesus’ words suggests an association with his death. The 
early place which Luke gives the story would break this 
association which is so natural in Matthew and Mark with 
Jesus’ death only two days away. In Luke all interest 
centers on the woman and her act as an expression of her 
feeling of repentance and need of forgiveness. Jesus, too, 
in his comments associates her act with her penitence and 
the forgiveness of her sins. Apparently he finds in her 
act no suggestion of a tribute to himself, no anticipation of 
the anointing of his body for burial. 

There is really very little in common between the ac- 


Wednesday 


count of Luke and that of Matthew and Mark except de¬ 
tails. Luke has Simon the Pharisee over against Simon 
the leper. The woman remains unnamed in Luke, but she 
is a sinful woman. Luke has an objection, not to the waste 
of the ointment, but from Jesus’ host regarding the char¬ 
acter of the woman. Luke does not make a point of the 
costliness of the ointment; the woman anoints Jesus’ feet, 
not his head. Any extravagance in Luke’s account is in 
the actions of the woman — her tears wiped off his feet 
with the hair of her head, and her kisses — not in the 
breaking of a precious cruse and the pouring out of costly 
ointment. In Luke Jesus has no words for the poor, no 
memorial for the woman. Instead he offers a defense of 
her conduct, and the scene closes with Jesus assuring the 
woman of the forgiveness of her sins. 

The idea of an anointing seems foreign really to the 
central theme of Luke’s story in 7:36-50. Originally the 
cruse and the ointment did not figure; both probably came 
from later confusions with the Markan form of the story. 
Luke’s account told originally a simple Galilean incident 
in which a sinful woman approached Jesus as he dined in 
the house of Simon the Pharisee; her tears fell on his feet, 
and she wiped them off with the hair of her head and 
kissed them dry. It was the simple and sincere act of a 
penitent woman to whom Jesus assured the divine for¬ 
giveness. 

The account of the anointing in the Fourth Gospel is 
dependent upon the earlier accounts, particularly Mark 

99 


The Passion Week 

and Luke. The Fourth Evangelist retains Bethany as the 
scene, however, six days before the Passover. It takes place 
in the home of Mary and Martha and Lazarus. It is a sup¬ 
per scene with Martha serving — an extract from Luke 
10:38-42. Lazarus is present — a name supplied by 
Luke’s only named character in a parable. (16:19-31.) 
The unnamed woman disappears and it is the beloved 
Mary who anoints Jesus, but she anoints his feet and 
wipes them with the hair of her head as in Luke’s form 
of the story. These three names were suggested to the 
Fourth Evangelist by the close association between his ac¬ 
counts of the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44) and the anoint¬ 
ing (12:1-8). The invidious remark about the waste of 
the ointment is ascribed to Judas. His name was probably 
suggested by the fact that the anointing in Mark (14:3-9) 
is followed at once by the betrayal (14:10-11). The three 
hundred shillings the Fourth Evangelist takes from Mark. 
The detail of the odor of the ointment filling the house is 
new. Jesus’ words in the Fourth Gospel on this occasion 
are chiefly from Mark — the anticipation of his burial, the 
presence of the poor always, and his own speedy depar¬ 
ture. The Fourth Gospel omits the memorial to the un¬ 
named woman, for who could forget this act of the 
beloved Mary ? 

Just what relation the anointing of Jesus bore to the 
rest of the story we cannot determine exactly. Its associa¬ 
tion with the passion week is of such early and long stand¬ 
ing that it would be difficult for us to conceive of it in any 

100 


Wednesday 

other connection. In spite of the fact that it appears in 
Matthew and Mark as a parenthetical passage interrupting 
the plot of Jesus’ enemies and the coming of Judas, its 
very temper, theme and treatment make it a fitting intro¬ 
duction to the passion drama. 

3. JUDAS BETRAYS JESUS. 

Matthew 26:14-16. Mar\ 14:10-11. Lu\e 22:3-6. 

The authorities are gathered together definitely plot¬ 
ting the end of the Galilean upstart who dared cleanse the 
temple. So far as they are concerned his fate is sealed. 
The only consideration is the imminent feast. (Mark 
14:1-2.) But even while they are plotting, events take 
an unexpected turn — one of the Galilean’s own follow¬ 
ers appears and betrays him into their hands. (Mark 
14:10-11.) Jesus, like other great men of history, was 
brought to death through the disloyalty of one of his 
own trusted followers. 

The account of Judas’ act here is very simple, too sim¬ 
ple, for it leaves so much unsaid that we feel we are in 
need of knowing. This is the first personal appearance of 
Judas in the story in the first three Gospels. Down to this 
point he has never figured as a speaker or actor. We have 
had thus far only the mention of his name as the last in 
the list of the twelve. 4 Judas’ act, then, comes like a flash 
of lightning out of a clear sky. 

Mark introduces Judas as “ one of the twelve,” the 

4 Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16. 


IOI 


The Passion Week 

usual New Testament introduction, suggesting that the 
early Christians were specially sensitive on just this point. 
Mark tells of Judas’ act in a most straightforward manner. 
He seems to know nothing of the motives that moved him 
to betray his Master. He makes no apology for the traitor 
and his act; he leaves Judas a free agent, bearing the full 
responsibility for his deed. Mark does not tell us in just 
what the betrayal consisted but he leaves the impression 
with his readers that Judas told the authorities something 
that made them glad, something apparently that furnished 
them with a case against Jesus — the thing that they have 
been seeking without success in the verbal combats. Mark 
does not portray Judas as bargaining. The money appears 
more as an afterthought of the authorities than as an 
actuating motive of Judas. 

The accounts of Matthew and Mark are not substan¬ 
tially different except in one or two respects. In Matthew 
Judas remains a responsible agent. The idea of his fur¬ 
nishing damaging information against Jesus is less promi¬ 
nent. Matthew elaborates on the motive of Judas: he be¬ 
trayed his Master for money. In Matthew he actually 
bargains with the chief priests, and they pay him in ad¬ 
vance. Thus the afterthought of the authorities in Mark 
becomes the commanding motive of Judas in the first Gos¬ 
pel. Only Matthew within the New Testament gives the 
amount of money Judas received for his deed, the thirty 
pieces of silver. (Zechariah 11:12.) 

Luke agrees with Mark in the idea of Judas’ furnish- 


102 


Wednesday 


ing incriminating evidence against Jesus and in the money 
as an afterthought. But Luke at the very outset apologizes 
for Judas; he is really not responsible for his deed; Satan 
entered into him; he was possessed, no longer a free agent 
but the helpless victim of sinister powers. The betrayal of 
Jesus then becomes really the work of Satan; Judas is 
just his victimized tool. Judas in Luke is to be pitied 
rather than blamed for his deed. Luke, as well as the 
Fourth Evangelist, acquits Judas on a theological tech¬ 
nicality. 

This brings us face to face with the Judas-Jesus prob¬ 
lem, for the figure of Judas with his mysterious role in the 
story of Jesus has always been a problem. Christians, early 
and late, have found in Judas a stumbling-stone of offense. 
Some of the Gospel writers, as well as modern biographers, 
have felt that they must deal with Judas and give some 
sort of explanation for his deed. 

No Christian writer has showed himself more sensi¬ 
tive to this Judas-Jesus problem than the Fourth Evan¬ 
gelist. That Judas created a problem for him is clear from 
the frequency with which he introduces Judas in particu¬ 
lar and hints in a general way at the presence of a betrayer 
in the little company. The Judas-Jesus problem as sensed 
and solved by the Fourth Gospel, in its own way, of course, 
may be stated in the form of a double question — a form 
of the problem that dominated all treatments of Judas 
down to the beginning of the twentieth century. 

In the first place, Why did Judas betray Jesus? Mat- 

103 


The Passion Week 

thew told us that Judas’ motive was mercenary; he bar¬ 
tered away his Master’s life for money. But after reading 
the accounts of Judas’ act in Mark and Luke in which 
the money appears as an afterthought of the chief priests 
rather than as a moving motive of Judas, we are skeptical 
of Matthew’s picture in this respect. The Fourth Evan¬ 
gelist, on the other hand, gets at the moral side of the prob¬ 
lem by blackening the character of Judas. Often in the 
course of his story he introduces Judas, and always he ap¬ 
pears in an evil light. All the way through the Fourth 
Evangelist assures his readers that Judas was thoroughly 
bad. In 6:70-71 he has Jesus speak of Judas as a devil and 
in 17:12 as “ the son of perdition.” It was the devil that 
put the thought of betrayal in Judas’ heart. (13:2-27.) 
He appears as the villain at the anointing in Bethany. He 
it is who says that the ointment has been wasted, that it 
might have been sold for much and given to the poor. 
(12:5.) But the Fourth Evangelist assures us in the next 
verse (12:6) that Judas did not care for the poor, that 
really he was a thief and stole from the common funds. 
In the Fourth Gospel we are not surprised when Judas be¬ 
trays his Master for we have learned to know him as a 
thoroughly bad person. 

In the second place, Why did Jesus ever choose Judas? 
In answer to this question the Fourth Evangelist is eager 
to save Jesus from an error of judgment. From the out¬ 
set Jesus knows that Judas will betray him (6:64); Jesus 
was not misled. He “ knew what was in man ” in general 

104 


Wednesday 


(2:25) and in Judas in particular (13:10-11). The Fourth 
Evangelist gives no account of the choosing of the twelve 
disciples, but he has Jesus tolerate Judas in his company in 
order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled — just what 
Scripture is uncertain in 17:12, but in 13:17 it is the classic 
passage on vicious treachery — Psalm 41 :g. In the Fourth 
Gospel Judas does not enjoy his Master’s confidence, and 
Jesus is always, in private words to the disciples, discrimi¬ 
nating against him. “ Ye are clean, but not all.” (13:10.) 
But in all of his attention to the Judas-Jesus problem the 
Fourth Evangelist gives us really no key to the services that 
Judas rendered the enemies of Jesus and by which he be¬ 
trayed him to death. 

Modern biographers in the main have followed the 
lines of the Fourth Gospel in the framing of the Judas- 
Jesus problem, giving special attention to the moral side 
of Judas and his act. They speak of Judas as the only one 
of the twelve who was not a Galilean (because of his 
name, Iscariot, supposing that it points to the Judean 
town of Kriyoth as his home). They suspect that he 
joined the company of Jesus only during the last days 
and consequently he never came really to understand 
Jesus as did the naturally sympathetic Galileans in the 
group. Others speak of growing disappointments and dis- 
illusionments of Judas in Jesus’ words and deeds, of a cool¬ 
ing of his early enthusiasm, of his ultimate desperation in 
betraying the man who had misled and disappointed his 
hopes of him. Still others see in Judas a sympathetic 

105 


The Passion Week 

follower to the very end; he simply misunderstood Jesus 
and betrayed him in order to force his hand and make him 
establish this long-announced kingdom. A few have gone 
so far as to portray Judas as the special friend of Jesus, the 
beloved disciple, who by his “ betrayal,” prearranged with 
Jesus himself, brought it to pass that he might be put to 
death on just the day when the Passover lamb was slain, 
thus becoming the eternal sacrifice. 

But none of these attempts, whether of the Fourth 
Gospel or the modern lives of Jesus, is specially impressive 
when we turn to the earliest account, Mark, where the de¬ 
tails concerning Judas and his deed are and remain doubt¬ 
ful and we have only the one certain fact that he did betray 
his Master. Mark gives us no answer to the question, 
Why did Judas betray Jesus? After reading Judas’ name 
as the last in the list of the twelve in Mark 3:19 we do not 
hear of him again until 14:10-11 when he is in the very 
act of betraying Jesus. Mark has not prepared his readers 
for this treacherous thing, a traitor within the trusted 
circle of the twelve. We have had no account of Judas’ 
calling; we have heard nothing of the circumstances of his 
joining the company of Jesus, nothing of his life prior to 
that time. We have never been told of any growing dis¬ 
appointments of Judas in the following of Jesus, of any 
disillusionment or dissatisfaction that brought about a 
breach between him and his Master. Mark has never once 
cast a reflection on the character of Judas by anything this 
disciple has said or done, for he has said or done nothing 

106 


Wednesday 


down to this point. The same is generally true of Mat¬ 
thew and Luke save that Matthew now introduces the 
mercenary motive and Luke the idea of the betrayal as 
the work of Satan through Judas. 

Mark, as well as Matthew and Luke, gives no answer 
to the question, Why did Jesus ever choose Judas ? There 
is no attempt to save Jesus from an error of judgment or 
to have him know from the first that there is a betrayer, 
just who he is and just what he will do. It is only at the 
supper table on the last night that the first hint of a traitor 
falls from Jesus’ lips. 5 Down to this point in the first three 
Gospels Jesus has never discriminated against Judas or any 
member of the twelve. There is no hint to the effect that 
he did not give this disciple the same spontaneous confi¬ 
dence that he gave the rest. Certainly Judas was one with 
the twelve when Jesus sent them on their mission. 6 We 
should suppose that Jesus chose Judas for the same reason 
that he chose the rest of his intimate group, and that in 
Judas he met with the same disappointment eventually 
that other great men have met, particularly those who 
have found it easy to trust others impartially. 

It is only in the present century that we are beginning 
to press close to the heart of the Judas-Jesus problem. In 
1901 Albert Schweitzer framed the question to read, What 
did Judas betray? This new framing marks a real ad¬ 
vance, for Judas must have put into the hands of the Jeru- 

5 Matt. 26:21-25; Mark 14:18-21; Luke 22:21-23. 

6 Matt. 9:35-11:1; Mark 6:6b-i3; Luke 9:1-6. 

IO7 


The Passion Week 

salem authorities certain secret facts, certain incriminating 
information that enabled them to make a case against 
Jesus. This is suggested in Mark’s notice to the effect that 
the chief priests were glad. But just what were the services 
of Judas ? The older ideas that he betrayed Jesus’ nightly 
place of retreat (John 18:2), that he served as a guide 
(Acts 1:16), or that he identified Jesus are no longer im¬ 
pressive. We must seek out something that might have 
had an actual bearing on the events themselves and that 
would account for the promptness with which the authori¬ 
ties proceed after the appearance of Judas, for the death 
of Jesus is hardly more than forty-eight hours away. 

Albert Schweitzer proposes that Judas betrayed the 
messianic secret. This view is impressive, for the messiah- 
ship appears as the crux of the Jewish and Roman hear¬ 
ings. In the Jewish trial the authorities seem to extract 
from Jesus a messianic confession and they condemn him 
to death for blasphemy. In the Roman trial his alleged 
messianic claim, so construed by his Jewish accusers, is 
presented in a political light. This view of Albert 
Schweitzer relates itself better to what follows than to 
what precedes, for in Mark we have met with no open 
messianic claim of Jesus and on the basis of Mark’s Gospel 
it is nowhere quite certain that Jesus regarded himself as 
the Messiah. To say that Judas betrayed the messianic 
conviction and claim of his Master goes really beyond 
what the sources warrant. It would be better perhaps to 
say that Judas betrayed the messianic conviction of the 
108 


Wednesday 


twelve concerning their Master. Since the later Galilean 
days this messianic conception of their Master has made 
sporadic appearances — in Simon’s confession for the 
group (Mark 8:27-30) and in the request of James and 
John (Mark 10:35-41), but an open avowal on the part of 
Jesus himself has nowhere appeared in Mark and Luke, 
only in Matthew (16:13-20). 7 If the Jerusalem authorities 
learned from Judas that messianic ideas and hopes were 
stirring within Jesus’ following, this would furnish plausi¬ 
ble material enough to proceed with his arrest and to insti¬ 
tute legal procedure against him. 

Professor Bacon, of Yale University, has made the 
interesting suggestion that Judas betrayed the anointing 
in Bethany, an incident that was full of messianic sugges¬ 
tions and associations for Judas and the enemies of Jesus. 8 
It was this fact that was used as a case against him. This 
theory has plausibilities but it would be much more im¬ 
pressive if we could assure ourselves that the anointing 
belongs at just this particular point in the Jerusalem story 
and is not just an interpolation for dramatic effect. 

We have no adequate solution for the Judas-Jesus 
problem. The sources are simply too uncommunicative. 
Judas as an actor in the story is a psychological puzzle, a 
moral mystery. The fact that he betrayed his Master into 
the hands of his enemies seems quite certain. His motives, 
however, were his own at the time, and they still are. We 

7 On this complicated question of the messianic materials in the Gospels, see 
Bundy, Our Recovery of Jesus, pp, 213-256. 

8 “What Did Judas Betray? ” Hibbert Journal, April, 1921. 

IO9 


The Passion Week 

have no way of reconstructing them. His betrayal of his 
Master seems to have been thorough and complete. The 
action that follows is prompt and rapid — within two 
brief days Jesus hangs dead on the cross. 


It is on Wednesday, then, that the real tragedy begins. 
The fate of Jesus is sealed because his enemies, determined 
upon his death, receive some unexpected but real aid from 
a man within the trusted company. Just what incriminat¬ 
ing evidence Judas furnished we are not in a position to 
say, but judging from the Jewish and Roman hearings that 
follow it must have been primarily of a messianic nature — 
personal convictions of Jesus himself or, more probably, 
those of his group concerning him. 


no 



CHAPTER V 


THURSDAY 



« 






ITH Mark 14:12 we are on the fifth day of the 
passion week, our Thursday. Mark’s notice really seems to 
include two different days in the Jewish feast calendar, 
“ on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacri¬ 
ficed the Passover.” The Passover lamb was slain and pre¬ 
pared toward sunset of the fourteenth of the Jewish 
month of Nisan (Ex. 12:6; Lev. 23:5-6) and the fifteenth, 
the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, began just 
after the same sunset. Friday in the Jewish reckoning 
began with sunset of our Thursday. For non-Jewish read¬ 
ers, then, the preparation of the Passover lamb and the 
beginning of the feast of unleavened bread would fall on 
one and the same day, our Thursday afternoon and eve¬ 
ning. Luke gives us his first definite dating in his passion 
story. (22:7.) 

The account of this fifth day is very brief in the first 
three Gospels. Among the six days of the passion week 
Thursday, closing at sunset, is the least eventful of all. 
It includes a single incident — the sending of the disciples 
into the Holy City to prepare for the feast that began on 
the same evening. As on Wednesday, Jesus himself does 
not go into the city. He remains in his place of retreat 
(Bethany in Matthew and Mark) and goes into the city 

“3 


The Passion Week 

only in the evening. The Fourth Gospel has no parallel to 
this single incident on this day, for in the Fourth Gospel 
Jesus does not eat the Passover but is arrested before the 
preparation begins and dies on the cross at the very time 
when the preparation for the Passover was in progress 
(18:28). 

1. THE PREPARATION OF THE PASSOVER . 
Matthew 26:17-19. Mar\ 14:12-16. Lu\e 22:7-13. 

According to Matthew and Mark the disciples take 
the initiative in suggesting the preparation of the Passover. 
In Luke, however, it is Jesus who orders the Passover pre¬ 
pared. In Mark he sends two unnamed disciples; in Luke 
it is Peter and John, the apostolic pair of the early chapters 
of Acts; in Matthew we might think that he sent all of the 
disciples. 

In this incident we meet a close parallel to the prepa¬ 
ration for the triumphal entry. 1 In Mark and Luke here 
we find the same mysterious, miraculous element that we 
met there, the same sort of detailed prediction of what the 
disciples will find — the man bearing the pitcher of water, 
the large upper room furnished and ready — the same sort 
of instructions as to how they are to conduct themselves, 
what they are to say, and finally both Mark and Luke 
emphasize the fact that the disciples find everything just 
as Jesus said they would. 

It is interesting to note, too, that Matthew eliminates 

1 Matt. 21:1-9; Mark 11:1-10; Luke 19:29-38. 


Thursday 

the mysterious, miraculous element here as he did in the 
sending for the colt. He omits all the predicted details 
about the man with the pitcher and the furnished room. 
At the close he emphasizes the fact that the disciples did 
as Jesus told them to do, not that they found everything 
just as he said in advance. 

In Mark and Luke we get the impression that the 
master of the house is learning of Jesus’ intention to eat 
the Passover under his roof for the first time; there have 
been no prearrangements between him and Jesus. But in 
Matthew the whole plan seems to have been prearranged 
between Jesus and the master of the house. He simply 
sends his disciples to “ such a man ” in the city with a sort 
of code message that he will at once understand, “ My 
time is at hand; I keep the Passover at thy house with my 
disciples.” (26:18.) 

The preparation for the Passover does not leave with 
us the unfavorable impression that the preparation for the 
triumphal entry left. The preparation here is more natu¬ 
ral, nothing is being staged as there, and it was a regular 
part of the events leading up to the feast. The day pre¬ 
ceding the first day of unleavened bread was set apart for 
removing all leaven from the house and the slaying and 
preparing of the Passover lamb. Even if we did not have 
this account, we might be quite certain what was going 
on within Jesus’ group during this day, for in the next 
scene we find them together celebrating the Passover meal. 
The story has acquired a mysterious, miraculous element 


The Passion Week 

in Mark and Luke, but with this eliminated, as it is in 
Matthew, the account leaves otherwise only a natural and 
favorable impression. 

Jesus and his group are here preparing to celebrate the 
most sacred of all Jewish festivals, the Passover. It throws 
important light on the table scene that follows. It is a 
Jewish occasion. Jesus and his group are Galilean Jews, 
Passover pilgrims. In spite of all the difficulties and im¬ 
probabilities associated with Jesus’ arrest, trial and death 
on this most sacred of feast days, the general import of the 
whole of the story in the first three Gospels is to the effect 
that Jesus and his group came to the Holy City at the 
season of the Passover, it was prepared for him, and on 
the last night of his life he ate the Passover in the closed 
company of his chosen companions. It is about this Jewish 
feast that the whole of the passion story centers. The 
tragedy that developed was the product of unforeseen cir¬ 
cumstances, the nature of Jesus’ activity in the Holy City 
itself and the bitterness of the Jerusalem opposition to his 
person and work. 


116 


CHAPTER VI 


GOOD FRIDAY 

Scene I 
At the Table 


rv^ 

? 

• • 

<N 

>-1 


K, 

jJ 

oo 

f 

'O \h 

t 

• • 

• # 

M- 

^ b 

ON •»-, 

N 


nCc' ><5^ 



s to to 


vo 

? 

rv^ 

<N 

• • 

O 

cj 


*A 

^h 

ro 

CO 


'A 


? 

? 


r 



rlo 

ro 

VA 

CO 

fO 


CN 
• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• # 

vo 

• • 

o 

On 

vo 

O 


On 

CN 


M 





*^4 

42 . 



*-1 


V 

f>n 
on 
• • 

<N 

M 

>-1 


>* 

< 

o 

»—i 

esj 

fc 

Q 

O 

O 

O 


oS 

<U 

2 

■K^ 


« 

<u 

V> 

<0 


(U 


• 

• 

• OO 

• w 
. | 

o 

7 

ro 

7 


1>N O 

V T 

to 

f-H 

^J- 

• 

• l 

• lA 

ctn 

M 

^t- 

lA OO 

y -1 

M 
• • 

<N 

• 

• 

• 

• w 

• 

V 

M 

c* 

(N 

(i cj 


to 

Vh 

03 


£ 

<L> 

to 

4-J 

4~> 

03 


<S 


oo 

M M 


<S T}- OO 

T T T 

m ro lA On 

ro ro ro co 


M lA 

V 7 

(S 
C* 


in ov 

V Jl 

O M VO 

(inn 
• • 

VO 

c* 


<u 

J> 

3 

* 

to 

<u 

to 


£ 

JJ 

3 

03 

H 

(U 

to 


X 

CJ 


c 4-> . 

«-. x x cj 

<L> <L) <U OS 

- 1 -' -M 

2 C>3 

+-> 03 ^ > 

^ ^ C 3 

W ^ rt rt 

« fc 

■S ^ LI — 


o3 <3 

h to 

<L) 

PQ 


co 

co 

<U 

G 


<D 

to 


bo o3 

s a 

o 


U Oh 
cw D-i 
Q* !_. P 
3 
CO 

.. T3 

CO 00 Uh 

03 (3 o 
to Ph hJ 


G 
o 
• »—< 
4-» 

o3 

G 

bJO 

• lH 

CO 

<L> 


CO 


& co 
> 
o 

co 

CO 

03 
Ph 


G 

O 

*-H 

w 

03 

G 

bo 

• *H 

CO 

<U 

Q 


<U 

to 

to 


(U 

to 

to 


CJ 

to 

to 


<U 

to 

H 


G 

Vh 

<L> 

u 

G 

O 

U 

G 
O 
• •—< 
4 —• 

G 

aj 

4-J 

G 

O 




CO 

H 

<D 

to 

4-» 

CO 

03 

<L> 
U 
• *—< 

> 

Vh 

aj 

CO 


aj 

j> 

£ 

to 

<D 

to 

4-4 

Vh 

o 

<4H 

CO 

<L> 

G 

O 

Vh 

to 

to 


G 

O 

a 

• *-H 

CO 

Vh 

O 

M-H 


3 

3 

4 -J 

CJ 

Vh 

O 

to 

3 

• ^H 

G 

<L> 

Q 

CO 


G to 
O to 


OO M 

vS £ 

(S <N 


<S 1A 
ro ro 

O ro 

ro ro 


03 

o 


"TD 

Vh 

(U 9 
Q. bo > 
T3 CO 

G to ^ 
^ to a 


<u 

Vh 

o 
to 

<u & 
g G 

S Q 

(U ^ 
CO CO 

to to 

« X 
O 
o 


03 


<D 

bJQ 


2 ^ 
T5 H 


<u 


aj 


03 

(U 

CO 

Vh 


^ H H H H h 

M cs ro H- in'O OO ON O w 


Oh <U 0 
CO PL, Ph 




T3 

:> jy 

^ Ph 
<L co 
to "u, 

w s 

a id 

O (L 

ro 

m m 


o 

r 

M 

<s 


• M 

t T i 

V ^ M 


o\ 

V 

I »-« M <S 

I •• •• l f\ 

CO co * • 
W M M VO 

a a a g 

to rX JIJ 43 
o o o o 

H—\ H—s H—N 

ci £ O TJ 




















WITH the supper scene we come into the last twenty- 
four hours of Jesus’ life. The time left is very short but 
the Gospel writers treat these last hours with great fulness 
and detail. This is the sixth and last day of the passion 
week, Good Friday. It begins with sundown of our Thurs¬ 
day, the supper scene falling on our Thursday evening 
which is the beginning of the Jewish Friday. And the 
story of Jesus comes to a close before the next sundown 
when his body is taken down from the cross and hastily 
laid in a nearby tomb because of the nearness of the Jewish 
Sabbath, our Saturday. This last day Christians, in that 
strange paradox typical of a religious faith that feels 
within itself a sense of triumph, have called Good Friday . 

These last twenty-four hours fall into five scenes: the 
the supper, the Gethsemane struggle, the Jewish and Ro¬ 
man trials, and the crucifixion. None of the Gospel 
writers neglects any one of these five last scenes although 
there are differences in materials and treatment. Through¬ 
out the five Matthew and Mark have substantially the 
same account. Matthew omits very little of the Markan 
materials and supplies very little new matter of his own, 
just brief passages here and there. On the whole he treats 
these closing scenes just as Mark does, telling the same 
story in the same way, very often in identical language. 

119 


The Passion Week 

Luke, however, is not so loyal to the Markan pattern. 
He reports all five scenes in the Markan order and ar¬ 
rangement, but within particular scenes he takes great 
liberties. In fact, Luke’s account of these last five scenes 
presents so many differences from Mark’s account that 
many scholars are of the opinion that Luke is using a 
wholly different and independent story of the last hours. 

In the Fourth Gospel these five final scenes remain in¬ 
tact. Some of them are greatly abbreviated, others greatly 
elaborated, over against the accounts in the first three Gos¬ 
pels. Important passages are omitted and a great body of 
wholly new matter comes in to take their place. All five of 
these scenes bear the stamp of the Fourth Evangelist’s own 
peculiar treatment; many familiar features disappear and 
many new features come to the front. The account in the 
Fourth Gospel often is in open conflict with the general 
plan and treatment in the first three Gospels. 


The supper scene is rather brief in Matthew 
(26:20-35) and Mark (14:17-31). It includes just two 
principal elements: the designation of the betrayer and 
the extension of the bread and the wine. With these two 
incidents all that Jesus says and does at the table is asso¬ 
ciated in the first two Gospels. 

Luke’s account of the supper scene is more elaborate. 
(22:14-39.) He reports the two incidents of Matthew and 
Mark, however, in reverse order: first, the extension of the 


120 


Good Friday 

bread and the wine; then, the designation of the betrayer. 
But Luke does not stop with these two incidents. He goes 
ahead to add a series of farewell words with which his 
supper scene closes. (22:24-39.) So far as these words 
have parallels in Matthew and Mark, they have earlier 
and different associations. 

The Fourth Gospel has the most elaborate account of 
the things said and done at the table. To this one scene 
the author devotes five long chapters. (13-17.) The sur¬ 
prising thing is that his account of the supper scene has so 
little in common with that of the first three Gospels, only 
a single incident — the designation of the betrayer. 
(13:10-11, 21-30.) In the Fourth Gospel, too, the supper 
itself falls into the background. It is not the great feast 
of the Passover but a private meal twenty-four hours in 
advance. Jesus does not extend the bread and the wine as 
he does in the first three Gospels. This famous act drops 
out of the Fourth Gospel entirely, only a doctrinal dis¬ 
course on eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood re¬ 
mains. (6:52-59.) Instead of the bread and the cup at 
the table Jesus as his last act for his disciples washes their 
feet as an object-lesson in humility. (13 :i-20.) Then fol¬ 
lows the famous farewell address, four long chapters 
(14-17), wholly new discourse matter with virtually no 
parallels in the first three Gospels. 


121 


The Passion Week 

i. AT THE TABLE WITH THE TWELVE . 

Matthew 26:20. Mar\ 14:17. Lu\e 22:14. 

It is our Thursday evening, the beginning of the Jew¬ 
ish Friday. Mark tells us that Jesus came with the twelve 
as though the disciples sent to prepare the Passover had 
rejoined Jesus in his place of retreat. This is Jesus’ first 
visit to the city since leaving it on Tuesday evening. 
Wednesday and Thursday were spent in his place of retreat. 
It is only on this last night, the first and only night, that we 
find him in the Holy City itself, in the home of a Jeru¬ 
salem friend eating the Passover meal. The fact that Jesus 
and his group go into the city to eat the Passover suggests 
that one of the old regulations was still in effect — the 
meal must be eaten within the city limits. 

The ceremonial details of the Passover meal are uncer¬ 
tain, for they varied at different periods in Israel’s history. 
According to the Mishna tractate Pesahim, the cele¬ 
bration began like the regular Sabbath meal with a bless¬ 
ing over a cup containing a mixture of red wine and water. 
This appears to have been followed by a brief word on the 
meaning of the feast by the head of the house. Then came 
a blessing, breaking and distribution of unleavened bread 
dipped with bitter herbs in a dish of specially prepared 
broth. Then the first half of the Hallel (Psalms 113-114) 
was sung, followed by a second cup. Then came the 
meal proper. After the meal the head of the house 
again blessed, brake and gave bread. Then came the 
third cup accompanied by the benediction, “Blessed 


122 


Good Friday 

art thou, O Lord, our God, thou who createst the fruit 
of the vine.” A final, fourth cup was poured and the 
second half of the Hallel (Psalms 115-118) was sung. 1 
It was this festival that brought Jesus and his group to 
Jerusalem. 

2. THE DESIGNATION OF THE BETRAYER. 
Matthew 26:21-25. Mar\ 14:18-21. 

All four Gospels associate the designation of the be¬ 
trayer with the supper scene. In Matthew and Mark it 
precedes the extension of the bread and the wine; in Luke 
it follows. In the Fourth Gospel (13:2i~3o) it follows the 
washing of the disciples’ feet and the words on humility 
which come during the supper. (13:2.) Some are of the 
opinion that it was not originally a part of the supper 
scene at all but was inserted at this point for its dramatic 
qualities, making the whole scene more solemn and 
impressive. 

The designation of the betrayer at the supper creates 
difficulties. Is it probable that Judas was at the table, a 
participant in this most intimate of all the scenes between 
Jesus and his group? Is it conceivable that he rejoined 
the company of Jesus after having betrayed him ? After 
his betrayal of Jesus (Mark 14:10-11) he does not appear 
as an actor in the story in Mark and Luke (22:47-48) until 
he comes at the head of the mob that seizes Jesus in Geth- 
semane. (14:43-46.) In spite of these difficulties all four 

1 Klostermann, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, I 118 

I2 3 


The Passion Week 

Gospel writers seem to assume that the entire group of the 
twelve is present. In Matthew and the Fourth Gospel 
Judas figures personally in the scene. 

We have here the first hint from the lips of Jesus in 
the first three Gospels that there is a betrayer in the trusted 
group. As readers we learned of Judas’ act earlier, on 
Wednesday, but this is our first hint of Jesus’ knowledge 
of what Judas has done. How he has learned of it we are 
not told. In Mark and Luke Jesus’ word is perfectly gen¬ 
eral; there is nothing specific about it. Judas is not un¬ 
masked. Jesus says no more than that the betrayer is at 
the table. This is as near as he gets to the betrayer in Mark 
and Luke. But in Matthew the scene is carried a step 
farther. Judas is singled out and unmasked for the traitor 
that he is. To his question, “Is it I, Rabbi? ” Jesus re¬ 
plies, “ Thou hast said.” 

This unmasking of Judas in Matthew (and in the 
Fourth Gospel) is highly improbable. After the designa¬ 
tion, the scene goes on as though Judas had not been ex¬ 
posed. In Matthew Judas does not leave the table as we 
should expect, and as he actually does in the Fourth Gos¬ 
pel. He stays on and shares in the sacrament of the bread 
and the wine, an inconceivable situation. The rest of the 
twelve seem to take no notice of what Judas has said or 
what Jesus says to him. They tolerate his continued pres¬ 
ence at the table and make no effort to forestall his deed 
and plan. 

The account of the exposure of Judas is even more 
124 


Good Friday 


elaborate and detailed in the Fourth Gospel, introducing 
new features and characters. Twice during the supper 
scene Jesus has hinted at the presence of the betrayer. 
(13:10-11, 18.) In 13:21-30 Jesus proceeds to point him 
out. Through the beloved disciple, who appears only in 
the Fourth Gospel and at this point for the first time 
(19:26-27; 20:2; 21:7-20), Simon Peter asks who the be¬ 
trayer is. Jesus answers that it is the one to whom he shall 
give the sop dipped in the dish. He dips the sop and 
hands it to Judas with the challenge, “ What thou doest, 
do quickly.” This challenge is strange for it suggests that 
Judas has not yet betrayed Jesus, as he has on Wednesday 
in the first three Gospels, and that he has his treacherous 
work yet to do. It seems to be only at the table that treach¬ 
ery enters into the heart of Judas as a suggestion of Satan. 
(13:2, 27.) Further, this challenge makes Jesus the ag¬ 
gressor in the betrayal rather than the victim. Finally, 
this challenge is strange, for no one, not even Simon Peter 
or the beloved disciple who puts the question, seems to 
understand the import of the sop and Jesus’ word to Judas. 
Some present at the table think that Jesus is sending Judas 
out to prepare for the approaching feast or to give some¬ 
thing to the poor. But the incident does have a more logi¬ 
cal conclusion in the Fourth Gospel than it does in Mat¬ 
thew for, after being exposed, at least for Jesus’ mind, 
Judas leaves the table — and, the Fourth Evangelist adds 
a dramatic flourish, “ it was night.” 


125 


The Passion Week 

In the next three paragraphs we meet the three dif¬ 
ferent New Testament accounts or texts of Jesus’ last great 
act and words in the presence of his chosen disciples — 
the extension of the bread and wine. Each of the three 
accounts has special features all its own that distinguish it 
from the other two accounts. The first account is that of 
Matthew (26:26-29) and Mark (14:22-25) who agree al¬ 
most verbatim, and we call their account the Matthew- 
Markan text. The second account we call the Lukan A 
text (22:15-18), for Luke seems to report two different 
texts in 22:15-20. The third we call the Pauline-Lukan B 
text because I Corinthians n:23b-26 and Luke 22:19-20 
give almost verbatim the same account. In the full text 
of Luke there are two cups (22:17-20), one before the 
supper and one after, the second corresponding to the only 
cup in the other accounts. The two cups in Luke suggest 
the conjunction of two accounts. 

3. THE LAST SUPPER. 

Matthew 26:26-29. Mar\ 14:22-25. 

At just what point in the celebration of the Passover 
Jesus performs this act is not clear in Matthew and Mark. 
The Passover meal, as we saw, includes four cups and two 
blessings and breakings of bread. According to the first 
two Gospels Jesus extends first the bread and then the 
cup; both are brought into direct connection with Jesus’ 
sacrificial death, and Matthew associates the cup with the 
forgiveness of sins. The account in the first two Gospels 

126 


Good Friday 


is primarily a simple narrative of an act of Jesus and his 
words in connection with it. There is no hint of an inau¬ 
guration of a cult or ceremony to be repeated in the future 
in his personal memory. It is the Last Supper rather than 
the Lord’s Supper. It is a private, personal, intimate occa¬ 
sion, a last farewell of Jesus with his group. The bread 
and the cup bind him to them and them to him. The 
original Jewish associations of the incident, the Passover 
meal, are virtually gone. The bread and the cup have lost 
their Jewish meanings and have become symbols of Chris¬ 
tian feeling and faith. 

At the very close we have a word of Jesus that cer¬ 
tainly is the most genuine part of the whole. “ Verily I 
say unto you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, 
until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of 
God.” (Mark 14:25.) Here all Christian symbolism and 
interpretation are dropped, and we have a simple and di¬ 
rect extract from the religious hope and outlook of Jesus. 
It consorts at once with companion utterances such as have 
appeared throughout the Gospel story. (Mark 1115; Matt. 
10:23; Mark 9:1.) Such an utterance gives us an intelligi¬ 
ble notion of Jesus’ meaning in extending the bread and 
the cup. The kingdom and its coming command him to 
the very end. 

The supper scene is ended in Matthew and Mark. It 
has included only the designation of the betrayer and the 
extension of the bread and the wine. In the next verse of 
Matthew (26:30) and Mark (14:26) Jesus and the twelve 

127 


The Passion Week 

leave the table for the Mount of Olives. In Luke, however, 
due to his reversal of the order of the two incidents in Mat¬ 
thew and Mark, we are just coming to the words of Jesus 
with which the supper scene opens. 

4. THE PASSOVER CUP. 

Lu\e 22:15-18. 

This Lukan A text includes only the cup. However, 
Jesus in verse 15 speaks of eating the Passover in the same 
manner that he speaks of the bread in the other accounts. 
In this first text of Luke, then, we have the eating of the 
Passover and the drinking of the cup in the prospect of the 
imminent coming of the kingdom of God. Of the three 
accounts of this last act this first of Luke is the most unique 
and peculiar. The ideas of the later Christian cult do not 
appear. Jesus’ words have a farewell tenor — death is just 
ahead — but the wine and the festival generally are not 
brought into any connection with his death as an atoning 
sacrifice. There is no hint of the inauguration of a re¬ 
ligious rite to commemorate his death, to be repeated in 
his memory. 

This* Lukan A text emphasizes the Jewish character 
of the occasion. Jesus and his group are eating the Pass- 
over meal. His acts and words are Jewish; neither reflects 
the later Christian rites and theological interpretations. 
What he says and does relates itself in an organic way with 
all that he has heretofore represented. He eats the Pass- 
over, he extends one of its cups, with his feeling and faith 

128 


Good Friday 


in the coming of the kingdom running high. Before an¬ 
other Passover with its cups the kingdom of God will ap¬ 
pear. He has looked forward to this Passover with genu¬ 
ine Jewish feeling and into its celebration he pours the 
entire substance of his hope and faith. The fact that he 
eats it, that he shares one of its cups, is his personal pledge 
that the kingdom he has announced from the first will 
come, and that soon. It is this special and peculiar text 
of Luke that relates itself best to all that we have learned 
to know of Jesus — his religious feelings, faith and hope 
relative to the appearing of God’s great kingdom. 

5. THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

Lu\e 22:19-20. / Cor. 11:2^0-26. 

Paul in I Corinthians n:23b-26 gives us our earliest 
written record of this last act of Jesus. It is removed from 
the time of Jesus’s death by not more than twenty years 
and antedates the Gospel accounts by ten to twenty years. 
But in spite of its early date it is without doubt the farthest 
removed of the three texts from what Jesus said and did 
and meant on this last night. The Jewish character of the 
scene disappears entirely. All associations with the Pass- 
over are gone. Instead we have pure Christian ritual and 
liturgy. It is no longer in narrative style, recounting some¬ 
thing said and done by Jesus, but it is phrased in the lan¬ 
guage and rhythm of the Christian cult of the Lord’s Sup¬ 
per. It is, perhaps, our earliest extract from primitive 
Christian cult and ceremony. It is this liturgical text of 

129 




The Passion Week 

Paul (and Luke 22:19-20) that has found its way into the 
church’s ritual used in the celebration of this rite. 

This Pauline text has really nothing in common with 
the Lukan A text. It has been stripped of all association 
with Jesus’ religious hope and outlook — the kingdom 
and its coming which we found to be the most genuine 
part of the other two texts. In I Corinthians 11:26 the 
religious outlook of Jesus has been converted into the early 
Christian hope: “ For as often as ye eat this bread, and 
drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.” 
In brief, this text has left in it virtually nothing of the re¬ 
ligion of Jesus and seems to be wholly a product of primi¬ 
tive Christianity and its cult as ordained by its Lord. In 
common with the Matthew-Markan text this third relates 
the bread and the cup to Jesus’ sacrificial death. The out¬ 
standing new feature is that Jesus is represented as estab¬ 
lishing an institution, as inaugurating a religious sacra¬ 
ment, to be repeated in the future in his personal memory. 
Its celebration is regarded as enjoined by Jesus himself. 

Luke 22:19-20 seems to have been taken over bodily 
from I Corinthians n:23b-25, perhaps for the reason that 
Luke’s first account, the simplest and most impressive of 
all, seemed so far removed from the Christian cult that 
would reproduce what Jesus said and did and meant on 
this last night. 

When we survey these three divergent accounts of the 
bread and the cup we see that two of them, the Matthew- 
130 


Good Friday 

Markan and the Pauline-Lukan B texts, give us Christian 
ritual and cult, feeling and faith, rather than the original 
meanings of Jesus in what he said and did. When we seek 
to reset ourselves in the actual situation between Jesus and 
his disciples on this occasion, it is hard to conceive of Jesus’ 
mysterious words and acts in these two texts as having 
any clear meaning for this simple Galilean group. Fur¬ 
thermore, it is just as difficult to relate them to the general 
body of all that we know of Jesus’ own religious message 
and mission. 

The Lukan A text, with all of its ritualistic short¬ 
comings, impresses us as the most genuine, as nearest what 
Jesus said and did and meant. His utterances and acts in 
this text are as clear and intelligible as any words and 
deeds of his associated with the kingdom and its coming. 
They maintain the point of view of the imminent king¬ 
dom, the religious outlook that commands Jesus from the 
first to the last. His statements are straightforward utter¬ 
ances devoid of all symbolical, ritualistic and sacrificial 
mystery. He relates the Passover, as he did Solomon and 
Jonah and the temple (Matt. 12:6, 41-42), to the greater 
thing that will supersede the holiest of houses and festi¬ 
vals. In spite of our natural Christian point of view, we 
must conceive of this last act in the most Jewish terms pos¬ 
sible, for Jesus and his group were not Western Christian 
believers but pious Galilean Jews celebrating the most 
sacred of Jewish festivals. 

Whatever Jesus may have meant by his act and utter- 

131 


The Passion Week 

ances on this last occasion with the twelve, certainly the 
original meaning both for himself and his Galilean group 
was more informal and personal, less theological and 
ritualistic, than the Christian cult of the Lord’s Supper 
from Paul down would lead us to suppose. This cult bases 
itself, in theory at least, on what Jesus said and did in a 
particular instance, yet it is doubtful if the church ever 
celebrated this rite in the original simpler sense of Jesus. 
The Christian cult has always centered on the person of 
Christ, his atoning and sacrificial death. The original act 
and words of Jesus centered on the kingdom of God and 
its coming, striking a bond of fellowship, a community of 
conviction with those who hope and pray for its coming. 
Perhaps in the earliest years, in the most primitive stages 
of the Christian brotherhood, the celebration was less 
formal and impersonal, a fellowship of faith as seems to 
appear in certain passages of Acts. (Acts 2:42-46; 20:7; 
27:35.) But this simpler sense, if it ever existed after 
Jesus’ death and the rise of the Easter faith, was suppressed 
by 50 a.d., at least within the Pauline communities, by a 
full-grown Christian cult and ritualistic celebration. Even 
in our earliest written witness (I Cor. n :23b-26) the origi¬ 
nal religious act of Jesus, one of the finest and most im¬ 
pressive of them all, is gone forever. The spontaneous ges¬ 
ture and impromptu utterance of a living and believing 
personality is converted into an official sacrament of salva¬ 
tion. Cold cult has chilled the warm pulse from which it 
came. Ceremony may fix the forms and theology may 
132 



Good Friday 

dictate the interpretations, but the original free spirit of the 
religious genius with whom it originated has escaped its 
traditional ecclesiastical observance. 

6. THE DESIGNATION OF THE BETRAYER. 

Lu\e 22:21-23. 

In Matthew and Mark the designation of the betrayer 
preceded the extension of the bread and the wine; in Luke 
it follows. The account of Luke is much briefer and 
shows no dependence on Mark. In the second Gospel we 
met a double designation of the betrayer (Mark 14:18, 20); 
Luke has just a single statement (22:21) that parallels 
Mark’s first (14:18). Luke does not note the distress of the 
disciples (Mark 14:19; Matt. 26:22); they do not question 
Jesus one by one, but question among themselves (Luke 
22:23). Luke agrees with Mark that Jesus’ word is per¬ 
fectly general; Judas is not unmasked as he is in Matthew 
and John. Luke’s woe on the betrayer is briefer, less 
dreadful, and he thinks of the betrayal in terms of the 
divine determination rather than in terms of the fulfilment 
of Scripture (Matthew and Mark). 

7. A CONTENTION CONCERNING RANK. 

Lu\e 22:24. 

Luke now proceeds to add a series of farewell words 
at the table. Mark and Matthew have parallels to approxi¬ 
mately half of this matter but they report it in other and 
earlier connections. 


133 


The Passion Week 

This series is introduced by a contention among the 
twelve as to who is the greatest. One has the feeling that 
Luke 22:24 should follow at once upon verses 15-18; 
Jesus’ exalted words on the kingdom and its coming stir 
the ambitions of the twelve. Verses 19-23 break this natu¬ 
ral psychological association and are doubtless an insert. 
After Jesus has just said that one of them would betray 
him (21-23), h 1S difficult to conceive of the twelve dis¬ 
puting over their respective greatness. 

Matthew and Mark have no contention among the 
twelve at the table. Mark (9:33-34) and Luke (9:46) re¬ 
ported a similar contention 2 toward the very close of their 
Galilean accounts. Luke’s dispute at the table is not at all 
complimentary to the twelve, for here on the very last 
night with disaster so close upon their Master they quarrel 
over their respective greatness. Luke’s picture here is his¬ 
torical with regard to the attitude of the twelve: namely 
— they seem to have come up to these last hours with no 
apprehension of disaster; the awful truth came out of the 
events themselves — the arrest, trial and death of their 
Master. 

8. SERVICE AS THE TEST OF GREATNESS . 

Luke 22:25-27. 

This is the first of Luke’s series of farewell words at 
the supper table. It comes as Jesus’ response to the conten¬ 
tion of the twelve concerning greatness. In Matthew 

2 Cf. Matt. 18:1. 


134 


Good Friday 


(20:25-28) and Mark (10:42-48) this word (in another 
form) is not associated with the supper scene nor with the 
contention concerning greatness. (Matt. 18:1; Mark 
9:33-34.) It is a part of their accounts of the journey to 
Jerusalem. Both report it in connection with the request 
of James and John (Matt. 20:20-24; Mark 10:35-41) for 
advance reservations on Jesus’ right and left hand in the 
kingdom — an incident omitted by Luke. 

9. THRONES FOR THE TWELVE. 

Lu\e 22:28-30. 

The first of Luke’s farewell words taught humility 
and service in view of the coming kingdom, a sort of dam¬ 
per for feelings that run too high. But this promise by its 
very character would fire these feelings again — the twelve 
shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of 
Israel. Mark has no parallel utterance of Jesus. Matthew, 
however, has an exact parallel but he does not associate it 
with the supper scene. He inserts it (19:28) into the midst 
of Jesus’ words on renunciation and its rewards as a part 
of his account of the journey to Jerusalem. 3 

Luke’s form opens with one of the few appreciative 
words of Jesus. The twelve are not just his followers 
(Matthew). They are faithful followers, and their loyalty 
will be rewarded. Thus a more friendly light comes 
to fall on the twelve after their contention concerning 
greatness. So often in the Gospels the twelve are 

3 Cf. Matt. 19:27-30; Mark 10:28-31; Luke 18:28-30. 

135 


The Passion Week 

pictured as dull, misunderstanding, weak and lacking in 
courage. 

10. SPECIAL SUPPLICATION FOR SIMON . 

Lu\e 22:31-32. 

The first two of Luke’s farewell words were addressed 
to the group, but this word and the following are ad¬ 
dressed to the most prominent member of the group, 
Simon Peter. This passage belongs to the prayer-life of 
Jesus. 4 The prayer itself we do not have, only its sub¬ 
stance. The passage is really a doublet to the one that 
follows (22:33-34), the familiar forecast of Simon’s denial. 
The two have the same undeniable point, and they may 
be two different and independent traditions of Jesus’ fore¬ 
cast to Simon. 

11. PETERS PLEDGE—HIS 
DENIAL FORETOLD. 

Lu\e 22:33-34. 

We meet here the traditional prediction of Simon’s 
denial. It is framed, apparently in its details, in the light 
of the denial itself. Luke includes this prediction as a part 
of the supper scene; it is made at the table. The Fourth 
Evangelist (13:32, 36-38) follows this lead of Luke. But 
in Matthew and Mark this prediction comes after the sup¬ 
per scene is over when Jesus and his group are on the way 
to Gethsemane. 

4 Cf. Bundy, The Religion of Jesus, p. 195 ff; Our Recovery of Jesus, p. 313 f. 

136 


Good Friday 


In Luke Simon’s pledge grows out of Jesus’ forecast 
of the failure of his faith. (22:31-32.) In Matthew and 
Mark it grows out of Jesus’ word to the twelve about their 
being offended in him. The Fourth Gospel has still a 
different occasion. (13:32.) It grows out of Jesus’veiled 
allusion to his approaching death. In the Fourth Gospel, 
too, Jesus predicts not only Simon’s denial but also his 
martyrdom. (13:36; 21 :i8-ip.) 

12. PURSE AND SWORD . 

Lu\e 22:35-38. 

The first two of the farewell words in Luke’s table 
scene were addressed to the twelve as a group (22:25-30); 
the next two utterances were for Simon in particular 
(31-34). This final word turns to the group again. It is 
found only in the third Gospel. 

The passage as a whole is puzzling. The purse and 
the sword here are not to be taken literally. They are 
simply figures of preparedness. They say that the time 
of testing is at hand for all concerned. Jesus cannot be 
thinking of armed resistance for his personal protection, 
for in the very next scene he halts and rebukes his would- 
be defender. (22:49-51.) 

13. ON THE WAY TO GETHSEMANE. 

Matthew 26:30-32. Mar\ 14:26-28. Lu\e 22:39. 

The supper scene is over. It comes to an end in Mat¬ 
thew and Mark with a hymn, apparently the second half 

I 37 


The Passion Week 

of the Hallel (Psalms 115-118) which came toward the 
close of the celebration of the Passover meal. This is 
doubtless the clearest echo of the Passover celebration that 
remains in the Matthew-Markan account of the table 
scene. Luke omits the hymn. In all three Jesus and his 
disciples leave the table and resort to the Mount of Olives. 
Luke has no words or incidents on the way, but in Mat¬ 
thew and Mark the materials in this passage and the fol¬ 
lowing have their scene on the way to Gethsemane. 

According to the first two Gospels Jesus now predicts 
the desertion of all the disciples, which comes at the close 
of the Gethsemane scene. Luke omits this prediction of 
the desertion of the twelve as he does the notice of their 
flight from the scene of the arrest. Throughout his Gospel 
Luke is inclined to relieve the twelve of any embarrassing 
details. 

The passage closes in Matthew and Mark with an 
Easter prophecy. It seems out of place here, for it disturbs 
the natural connection between Jesus’ word on the deser¬ 
tion of the disciples and Peter’s personal pledge which 
grows out of it in the following passage of Matthew and 
Mark. The motive for its insertion at this point is perhaps 
to explain that the flight of the disciples on the last night 
was only temporary. A little later they are welded into a 
compact company by the Easter conviction. 


138 


Good Friday 


14. PETER’S PLEDGE — HIS 
DENIAL FORETOLD . 

Matthew 26:33-35. Mar\ 14:29-31. 

In Luke this prediction was made at the table 
(22:33-34) an d it grew out of Jesus’ special word to Simon 
about the impending failure of his faith (31-32). In 
Matthew and Mark, however, it comes on the way to 
Gethsemane and is occasioned by Jesus’ prediction of the 
desertion of the twelve. In Mark the cock is to crow 
twice, and does in the denial story itself (14:72), in Mat¬ 
thew and Luke only once. In the first two Gospels Peter 
repeats his pledge and the rest of the disciples make a 
similar vow. Luke omits these elements; only Peter is in¬ 
volved and in a single vow. The Fourth Gospel agrees 
with Luke in this respect. (13:36-38.) 


139 






CHAPTER VII 

GOOD FRIDAY 

Scene II 
Gethsemane 


\ 





% 
in 
• • 

<N 


<U 

3 


VO oo 

Tj- "sl- 


I 

c 

^t“ 
• • 

Cl 

M 


r-s 

^t" 


cd 


CO 

in 


in jz 

I M d 
C\ in in 
,e 3- 




>< 

< 

Q 

M 

Q 

O 

O 

O 


c3 

<s 

S 


Co 


^4 

u. 

cd 


d 

VO 


• ON 


d 

71- 

71- 


: r 


in 

1 

d 

CO 


• 00 

O 

1 

M 

CO 




in 

in 

" 4 " 






M 








VO 

0 

,( d" 

• cd 

£ 


in 

in 

• vo 

<u 

1 

1 

1 

• 1 r\jz 


VO 


w 

• 1 vo 

4 -» 

4 -J 

cd 

CO 
• • 

VO 

d 


in 

• m in 

• in 


JJ 

"bJQ 

bO 

3 

H 

4-» 

CO 

”c3 

§ 

oo 

U) 

<D 

PH 

rs 

C/5 

3 

C/5 

<D 


£ 

H3 

<u 

Vh 

(U 

> 

<U 

CO 

<u 

J3 


C/5 

<u 


(J 

C/5 


<U 

o 

g 

cd 


*o 

<u 

o 

G 

cd 

Vh 

4-» 

C/5 


Q .S 


<U 

M 


G 

cd 

S 

bfl 

G 

§ 

£* 

a 

fH 

cd 


00 

<L> 

Vh 


c/5 


<u 

~G 

H 


o 

bO £ 

^ s 

oo Cd (L) 

«j «j PS 

« K . 

C/5 

003 

~G ^3 £ 

H H hH 


G 

O 


Vh 

<D 

oo 

<U 


<D 

u 

cd 

<-W 

O 

4—> 

*G 

bo 


Q fo 


QJ 

-G 

H 


<u 

-G 

H 


. VO 
Cl d 


»H 03 H Cl C\ 

M OO I 

I I O osj :i 

M M M M OO 

OO OO OO OO oo 


G G C G G 

X -C .d G ^ 

O O o o o 

►“X * ' ►—N ►—S , 

Ctf ,Q C5 'O <35 


m r) m i- lA'O t-s 

















V v E now come to the second of the five scenes in the 
last twenty-four hours. In all four Gospels this retreat 
follows at once upon the supper scene. Matthew (26:36) 
and Mark (14:32) alone use the name “ Gethsemane.” 
Luke (22:40) writes “the place” without the name as 
though it were secret. This secrecy fits in with his Acts 
conception of the services of Judas, “ who was a guide to 
them that took Jesus” (1:16), as though Judas betrayed 
the locality of nightly retreat. In the Fourth Gospel the 
name “ Gethsemane ” is not used. Jesus crosses the brook 
Kidron and enters a “ garden.” (18:1.) Judas knew the 
place, for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples. 


(18:2.) 


Matthew reports the Gethsemane scene substantially 
as Mark does. He adds no important new elements and 
omits only Mark’s closing notice (14:51-52) concerning 
the flight of the unnamed young man. Luke agrees with 
Matthew in omitting this notice; he also omits the notice 
of the desertion of the disciples (Mark 14:50). Luke adds 
the new feature of the healing of the severed ear. Within 
the scene Luke shows no real dependence on Mark and 
seems to be following a tradition all his own and, at im¬ 
portant points, quite different from Mark’s. 


M3 


The Passion Week 

In the Fourth Gospel (18:1-11) the Gethsemane scene 
is greatly abbreviated and altered. The most important 
item in the whole scene, Jesus’ struggle in prayer, is gone, 
and the garden becomes merely the scene of Jesus’ arrest. 
Thus the scene loses the dramatic quality that it has in 
the first three Gospels and it has nothing of the importance 
for Jesus personally that they ascribe to it. So far as the 
Fourth Gospel has parallels to other elements in the scene 
they are given the peculiar treatment that conforms to the 
Fourth Evangelist’s general delineation of the personality 
and character of Jesus. 

i. JESUS' PERSONAL STRUGGLE . 

Matthew 26:36-46. Mar\ 14:32-42. Lu\e 22:40-46. 

The heart of the Gethsemane scene, omitted by the 
Fourth Evangelist who has no retreats for prayer and who 
strips all struggle from the soul of Jesus, is the opening 
incident in the first three Gospels — Jesus’ personal strug¬ 
gle in prayer to God. The Fourth Evangelist seems to 
have omitted this struggle because such deep distress and 
humiliation conflicted with his exalted conception of the 
Christ. He preserves only two ragged remnants in 12:27 
and 18:11b. This dramatic soul-conflict has so impressed 
the Christian imagination that the other items in the scene 
have been quite overlooked. Among the New Testament 
writers none seems to have been more deeply impressed 
with this prayer-scene than the unknown author of He¬ 
brews. (5:7-8.) 

144 


Good Friday 


Matthew and Mark give practically the same account 
of the Gethsemane struggle. There are only a few minor 
differences. The chief differences are found in Luke over 
against Matthew and Mark. Luke’s account is much 
briefer and there are important changes and new features. 
Luke has the same admonition at the beginning (22:40) 
and at the conclusion (46), “ Pray that ye enter not into 
temptation.” In Matthew and Mark it appears but once, 
on Jesus’ return from the first retreat. It has a natural 
point only when it is addressed to disciples who have been 
asleep. Luke omits the turbulent state of Jesus’ emotions. 
(Matt. 26:37b~38; Mark i4:33b~34.) The most outstand¬ 
ing new feature in Luke’s account is that he has Jesus re¬ 
treat for prayer only one time over against the three re¬ 
treats in Matthew and Mark. Further, Luke has Jesus 
withdraw directly from the disciples as a group. He does 
not select Peter, James and John and withdraw first with 
them as he does in Matthew and Mark. In the first two 
Gospels he selects these three intimates and withdraws 
from the rest of the group, then he withdraws from the 
three to pray alone. Luke also adds matter not found in 
the first two Gospels: the appearance of the angel and 
the sweat as drops of blood. These two features (Luke 
22:43-44) are l ater an d legendary; further, they are not 
i found in the best manuscripts of the third Gospel. 

In the first two Gospels there is a rebuke in Jesus’ 

! words to the disciples who have not watched but slept, and 
! Simon is singled out in particular. In Luke all the disci- 

145 






The Passion Week 

pies have been sleeping; Simon is not singled out for re¬ 
buke. Luke excuses all the disciples on the ground that 
they were overcome with sorrow as though they under¬ 
stood all that was involved and about to come. But the 
picture of the disciples in Gethsemane does not suggest 
that they realized the critical character of the situation. 
In spite of the many things that the Gospel writers have 
inserted to prepare them for the great tragedy, it neverthe¬ 
less seems to strike them wholly unsuspecting and un¬ 
prepared. 

The same thing is true of the picture of Jesus in Geth¬ 
semane. The Gospel writers have taken pains to assure 
their readers that Jesus is fully aware of the tragic out¬ 
come, yet here they picture him in direst distress of soul. 
Whatever Jesus’ thought on the outcome may have been 
up to this time, it is only now that the full weight of the 
issue strikes him to his knees. If he has felt that the di¬ 
vine will points toward death, he has regarded it as tenta¬ 
tive and even now open to revision. 

The Gethsemane struggle is not only one of the great¬ 
est scenes in the life of Jesus but in' all religious history. 
No matter what one’s religious faith may be, he cannot 
but be deeply impressed with such a man on his knees, 
struggling with his God, with such a prayer on his lips. 
Gethsemane belongs to humanity’s great prayer-scenes, to 
man’s religious triumphs. 

This is the last and greatest of all the nine retreats for 
prayer in the first three Gospels. It is the only one of the 
146 


Good Friday 


nine in which Jesus’ prayer is reported. 1 In such a scene 
we see prayer in its primitive purity and power, something 
too of what prayer meant in the experience of Jesus. It is 
the pressure of impending events that brings him to his 
knees on this occasion. The results of his praying are 
equally clear. The scene opens with Jesus torn by the 
strongest of elemental emotions; it closes with him calm, 
confident and assured. In the trying scenes that follow we 
see him wholly composed ; he exhibits a remarkable degree 
of self-possession; surrounded by religious fanaticism, he 
retains a superb fineness of spirit. 

2. THE ARREST . 

Matthew 26:47-50. Mar\ 14:43-46. Luke 22:47-48. 

In all of the first three Gospels the Gethsemane retreat 
is interrupted by the appearance of a “ multitude.” They 
are emissaries of the Jewish authorities according to Mat¬ 
thew and Mark. Luke does not indicate the constituency 
of the crowd at this point, but in 22:52 he seems to assume 
that the authorities themselves are present — a rather im¬ 
probable detail. According to Matthew and Mark Jesus is 
seized at once, but in Luke the actual notice of arrest comes 
only at the very close of the Gethsemane scene (22:54a). 
In the first three Gospels Jesus comes first into Jew¬ 
ish hands, not Roman hands as in the Fourth Gospel. 
(18:3,12.) 

At the head of the mob comes Judas. This is his first 

1 Cf. Bundy, The Religion of Jesus, p. 189 ff; Our Recovery of Jesus, p. 314 f. 

147 


The Passion Week 

appearance as an actor in the passion story since his betrayal 
on Wednesday, that is, in Mark and Luke. In Matthew 
(26:25) an d the Fourth Gospel (13:2, 26-29) he figured 
personally in the supper scene. We now realize the full 
import of Judas’ betrayal of his Master. Why or what he 
did to betray him is uncertain, but he did succeed in bring¬ 
ing about his Master’s arrest. 

Matthew and Mark tell of Judas’ prearrangement 
with the multitude: he will identify Jesus with a kiss. 
Luke omits this prearranged sign. In both Matthew and 
Mark Judas kisses Jesus, but in Luke Jesus wards off the 
Judas-kiss. In Mark Jesus is silent; he has no word for the 
betrayer. In Luke Jesus’ word is a rebuke that empha¬ 
sizes his treachery, “ Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man 
with a kiss ? ” (22:48.) In Matthew Jesus’ word to Judas 
is a challenge, “ Friend, do that for which thou art come.” 
(26:50a.) In tone it is very like Jesus’ word to Judas at 
the table in the Fourth Gospel, “ What thou doest, do 
quickly.” (13:27b.) 

The Fourth Gospel has its own peculiar account of 
the arrest. (i8:i-8a.) In this Gospel Judas is leading a 
cohort of Roman soldiers, also apparently members of the 
temple guard — a combination of the Jewish and Roman 
authorities. Judas plays otherwise no role in the scene of 
the arrest. The idea of the Judas-kiss does not appear. 
There is no need for it since Jesus identifies himself twice. 
(18:5b, 8b). He steps forward to meet the guard. When 
he first identifies himself as the one they seek, they fall 

148 


Good Friday 


down on the ground. Really, the Fourth Evangelist is 
saying, they have no power to take him; they are helpless 
before even his presence; he is in complete command of 
the situation. In the Fourth Gospel, then, Jesus is not 
arrested; he voluntarily surrenders himself. This peculiar 
presentation of the scene is simply a part of the Fourth 
Evangelist’s picture of Jesus, of his own free will, going 
to his death. 

3. THE RESISTANCE. 

Matthew 26:51-54. Mar\ 14:47. Lu\e 22:49-51 a. 

The preceding passage in Matthew and Mark closed 
with the notice of Jesus’ arrest, and now there follows at 
once in both the resistance by someone with a sword. In 
Luke, however, the resistance (22:49-513) precedes the 
actual notice of the arrest (54a). Luke tells us that it is the 
prospect of what may follow that prompts the resistance. 
(22:49a.) 

According to all three Gospels the high priest’s serv¬ 
ant loses an ear. The surprising thing is that there is no 
counter-attack or reprisal from the side of the authorities. 
In Mark Jesus has no word of rebuke for his defender and 
offers no opposition to the defense. Matthew and Luke 
have a rebuke of Jesus addressed to his defender. In Luke 
the rebuke is rather gentle, “ Suffer ye them thus far.” In 
Matthew, however, it is sharper and a rather extended 
utterance. (26:52-54.) 

The Fourth Evangelist again has his own special ac- 

149 


The Passion Week 

count of this scene. (18:10-11.) He names the unnamed 
persons in the account of the first three Gospels — a fre¬ 
quent habit of his. Simon Peter is the ardent defender of 
Jesus. The name of the servant of the high priest is Mal- 
chus who has a kinsman who is also in the service of the 
high priest and who witnessed Peter’s act in the garden. 
(18:26.) In the Fourth Gospel Jesus’ rebuke is addressed 
to Peter, “ Put up thy sword into the sheath; the cup which 
the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it ? ” — the 
Fourth Gospel’s only echo of any of the seven prayers of 
Jesus in the first three Gospels. 

4. THE HEALING OF THE SEVERED EAR. 

Lu\e 22:51 b. 

At this point Luke introduces a new element in his 
Gethsemane scene, one not found in the other Gospels — 
the healing of the severed ear. In Matthew and Mark 
there is no such reparation; even the Fourth Gospel passes 
it by. It is the only concrete case of cure ascribed to Jesus 
during the Jerusalem days in the first three Gospels. This 
healing is a local tradition ignored, if known* by the other 
Gospel writers. 

5. JESUS' REMONSTRANCE. 

Matthew 26:55-560. Mar\ 14:48-49. Lu\e 22:52-53. 

One has the feeling that this remonstrance should 
follow upon the arrest and that the resistance should be 
followed at once by the flight of the disciples. Jesus’ 
150 


Good Friday 


speech here is quiet and dignified. It should follow upon 
the first appearance of his enemies rather than upon the 
confusion that the armed resistance must have called forth. 

The remonstrance of Jesus begins alike in all of the 
first three Gospels. They come out against him as against 
a robber, with improvised armament as though seeking a 
skulking criminal. They come at night and in secret. 
Why did they not take him in broad daylight, in public 
as he taught in the temple? In Matthew and Mark the 
speech closes with Jesus resigned because all this fulfils 
Scripture. In Luke, however, there is no resort to Scrip¬ 
ture. Jesus’ thought is more fatalistic, “ This is your hour, 
and the power of darkness.” (22:53b.) This view is more 
like that of the Christianity represented in the Fourth Gos¬ 
pel in which Jesus’ fate is set and sealed by a divinely 
appointed hour; it hovers over him and holds him inviola¬ 
ble until it actually arrives. (John 2:1; 7:6,8, 30, 44; 8:20; 
13:1.) With this resignation to fate the Gethsemane scene 
closes in Luke. 

In the Fourth Gospel the remonstrance of Jesus does 
not come in the Gethsemane scene but is addressed to the 
high priest at the Jewish hearing. (18:19-21.) Its princi¬ 
pal point is the same as in the first three Gospels. 

6. THE DESERTION OF THE DISCIPLES . 

Matthew 26:56b. Mar\ 14:50. 

Luke spares the disciples this embarrassing notice. 
He prepared the way for its omission when he passed over 

151 


The Passion Week 

Jesus’ word to the effect that they all would be offended in 
him this night and be scattered as sheep without a shep¬ 
herd, spoken on the way to Gethsemane in Matthew 
(26:30-32) and Mark (14:26-28). Their desertion is all 
the more dramatic in view of their pledge of loyalty only 
a short time before, on the way to the very scene of 
their flight. (Matt. 26:35b; Mark 14:31b.) Luke also 
omitted this pledge of the twelve. With this notice of the 
desertion of the disciples the Gethsemane scene closes in 
Matthew. 

The Fourth Evangelist (i8:8b~9) does not omit the 
flight of the disciples as Luke does, nevertheless he spares 
them this disgrace. He assures his readers that the dis¬ 
ciples were not arrested with Jesus because they escaped 
(Matthew and Mark), but because Jesus requested that 
they be allowed to go free. “ If therefore ye seek me, let 
these go their way ” — thus fulfilling his word in 17:12. 
In the Fourth Gospel Jesus is the good shepherd protecting 
his flock to the very end. This apology of the Fourth 
Evangelist is a clever stroke, but the historical fact of the 
disciples’ desertion becomes only the more graphic. 

This is the last that we hear of the twelve, Jesus’ chosen 
group of Galileans, in the Gospel story. Only Simon Peter 
appears again, in the next scene where the story of his 
denial is told. Matthew halts between the Jewish and 
Roman trials to tell of the fate of Judas. (27:3-10.) The 
Fourth Gospel reports Peter’s denial and adds a wholly 
new feature, the presence of the unnamed and beloved 

152 


Good Friday 


disciple at the Jewish hearing (18:15-17) and at the cross 
(19:26-27). 

The arrest of Jesus seems not only to have scattered 
his chosen disciples but also to have shattered all the 
hopes they had gained and entertained in his following. 
Whither they fled we are not told, perhaps within a short 
time to their homes in Galilee. Matthew and Mark in 
their resurrection reports seem to think only of Galilee as 
the scene of the Easter experiences of the twelve. In Luke 
and John (chapter 20) the Easter visions have their scene 
in and about Jerusalem. At any rate, it is only later, in 
connection with the rise of the Easter faith, that we find 
Jesus’ chosen group assembled again, welded into a com¬ 
pact company by the heat of the new conviction. 

7. THE FLIGHT OF A CERTAIN YOUNG MAN . 
Mar\ 14:51-52. 

With this strange notice Mark concludes his Geth- 
semane scene. Who is this young man? What is he 
doing here and why does he flee in such haste if he does 
not belong to the intimate following of Jesus? Appar¬ 
ently he is not one of the twelve, for they fled in the pre¬ 
ceding passage. Almost endless speculation has gathered 
about this unnamed figure. The fact that so little is 
known about him has enabled speculators to say so much 
about him. Some see in him none other than John Mark, 
the author of the second Gospel. Here in a dark corner of 
his portrait he writes his name in cipher. It was in the 

153 


The Passion Week 

home of his mother in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12) that Jesus 
and his disciples ate the Passover, and now the youthful 
Mark has followed Jesus and his group to Gethsemane. 
Thus Mark is made an eye-witness of the Jerusalem events 
in whole or in part. This older view is no longer impres¬ 
sive. There is nothing in the account of the Jerusalem days 
that would suggest an eye-witness of the events. Rather 
the whole appears as common community tradition from 
which all the marks of individual and personal memory 
have been effaced. 

The passage is doubtless a later addition to the Gospel 
of Mark. The very fact that Matthew and Luke ignore 
it would suggest that it was not found in the Gospel of 
Mark known to them. 


154 


CHAPTER VIII 


GOOD FRIDAY 

Scene III 
The Jewish Trial 


■2 


< 

Q 


to 


<2 


Q 

O 

O 

O 






Si 

<u 

to 


£ 

<v 

-a 


in x 

vo vo 


M- 1h 

X X 


-V-sr’ 

s § 


X ir> 

5:1 

IX fO 

vo 


oo VO 

11 

1>N ^ 

VO vo 


o 

<N 


VO 


rs| (N 

<N CN 


VO VO 

<N <N 




1-4 1-4 


«-0 

vi 


§§ ^ 


<L> 

3 

hJ 


in 

in 


^t- 

in 


n 

cj 


<N in m 
vo vo r^s 

vi ro vi 
in vo vo 


ro 

CJ 


u 

a 


tJ- 

in vo 


<s 


I I 


m in in 
in in vo vo 


i 


oo vo oo in 
in vo vo ix 
l 1 I I 
N 0\ N 0\ 
m in vo vo 


t i vo 

aJ (si 


C/5 

<u 


Vh 

Ph 


03 

• *H 

Vh 

H 


-a 

C/5 


a 

a: •> 


& 

a-) 


<u 

J3 




O aj 

^ -c 


5^ 

VJ 

1-4 


*a 


c/5 


in 


o 

? T 

m ro 


<s 


£ 

<u 


o 

« 


c /5 

CT 3 

HD 

3 


<L> 


<3 


<D 

*T3 


O 


1-4 


<u 

4-> 

Ctf 


o 

• *H 

3 

CO 


VJ 


nO 


£ -Cj 

> C/5 


<L> 


T> ^ 

Q ^ 


"u ^ 
O Q 


C/5 


n3 

<u 

u 

o 


a 

H 


a. 

o 


H3 

a 

rt 


<u qj 

-C 

H H 


C/5 X 

5/5 <U 


on 

3 

oo 

<U 


>x <L> 

Vh ^ 

oo > 2 

^3 g 

oj is 

Q c* 


£ 

<L> 


<U 

-a 

H 


<u 

-a 

H 


<u 

-a 

H 


w d ro -f m vo ix oo 













CS 

i 




ON 

i 

m 



(N 

M 

(S 


• 


• rs 

• fN 


oo 


M 

^ OO 


fS 

1 

M 

1 

<N 

1 

n M 


M 

1 

<N 

ON 

^ in oo 


W 

M 

M 

rj M <n 


OO 

OO 

OO 

00 oo oo 


M 

h-» 

M 

w M M 


a 

a 

Ha 

a 

g S CJ 
-5 ^ t& 


o 

o 

o 

. O o Q 


►—\ 

s 


►— V H— S 


c 3 

/O 

o 

d 

e 

f 

% 

















I N this scene and the following we come to the trial of 
Jesus. The first hearing is before the Jewish authorities, 
the Sanhedrin; the second before the Roman governor 
Pilate. The crux of both trials is the messianic issue. The 
first three Gospels represent Jesus as condemned to death 
by the Jewish legal body for the religious offense of blas¬ 
phemy: he confesses that he is the Messiah. Before Pilate 
this messianic issue, according to the Gospel writers, is 
given a political turn by the Jewish accusers, as though 
Jesus as Messiah were dangerous to the Roman rule. 

All sorts of difficulties arise out of the Gospel accounts 
of this double trial of Jesus. We know that the Jews of 
Jesus’ day enjoyed unusual privileges among the provin¬ 
cials under Roman rule and occupation. That the Jewish 
legal body could not carry out the death penalty is clear 
outside of the New Testament in Jewish sources. The Gos¬ 
pels assume that the Jewish court could pass a death sen¬ 
tence, but the Jewish sources furnish no confirmation of 
this point; rather they contradict it. We know so little of 
Roman legal procedure and regulations in Palestine in the 
first century, so little of the rights granted and the restric¬ 
tions imposed upon the Jewish legal body, that we are 
not in a position to form a clear conception of what 

157 


The Passion Week 

probably happened. The general gist of the trials 
in the Gospels, the case as preserved against Jesus, is 
perhaps historical. But in details and particulars we 
strike upon matters that seem highly improbable, even 
contradictory . 1 

One has the impression all the way through of the 
inadequacy of the Gospel accounts of the Jewish and Ro¬ 
man proceedings. So much is missing that we are in need 
of knowing. So much is reported that seems irregular, 
illegal, improbable — the arrest on the first night of the 
feast, the trial at night and on the feast night itself (Mat¬ 
thew and Mark), the assembly of a legal body of seventy- 
three members or its quorum of twenty-three, the scene 
at the high priest’s house, the death sentence by the Jewish 
authorities, the pressing of the execution of the death sen¬ 
tence before the Romans and the execution itself on the 
holiest of feast days. 


The Jewish trial begins and ends alike in all of the 
first three Gospels. It opens with the delivery to the high 
priest and closes with the delivery to Pilate. Matthew 
follows Mark exactly in the order of the interven¬ 
ing incidents: the delivery, the trial, the mocking, 
the denial. Luke reverses this order: the delivery, 
the denial, the mocking, the trial. Luke’s arrange- 

1 For a sympathetic Jewish statement of the improbabilities, irregularities and 
illegalities involved in the Gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus, see Montefiore, 
The Synoptic Gospels, I 351-353. Also, Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 340 £. 

158 



Good Friday 

ment of the incidents in the Jewish trial is more 
logical than that of Matthew and Mark for the following 
reasons: 

First. In Matthew and Mark the Jewish trial comes 
at night. There is the difficulty of getting the Sanhedrin 
of seventy-three members together on such short notice. 
There is the more serious question of the legality of a 
trial at night. Luke’s trial at dawn is more probable in this 
one respect yet it falls upon the greatest of the Jewish 
feast days. 

Second. According to Matthew and Mark there are 
really two sittings of the Sanhedrin, one for the trial at 
night (Matt. 26:59-66; Mark 14:55-64) and one early in 
the morning when Jesus is sent to Pilate (Matt. 27:1-2; 
Mark 15:1). Luke’s account is more natural at this point, 
for there is but one session of the Sanhedrin, at dawn, at 
which Jesus is tried (22:66-71) and delivered to Pilate 

(23=1)- 

Third. Mark’s account of the trial has an unnatural 
break in it; the same is true of Matthew. In Mark we 
should expect the story of Simon’s denial to follow at once 
upon the delivery to the high priest. The scene is all set 
for it in Mark 14:54: 

“ And Peter had followed him afar off, even within, 
into the court of the high priest; and he was sitting with 
the officers, and warming himself in the light of the fire/' 
(Cf. Matt. 26:58.) 


159 


The Passion Week 

However, the story of Simon’s denial does not come at this 
natural point but later (14:66-72), the trial (55-64) and 
the mocking (65) intervening. Consequently, Mark (and 
Matthew in 26:29) must reset the scene for Simon’s denial 
in 14 :66-6y. In Luke, however, this unnatural break does 
not exist, for the denial of Simon (22:56-62) follows at 
once upon the delivery to the high priest when the scene is 
all set (5^-55). 

Before turning to the particular paragraphs on the 
Jewish trial in the first three Gospels, we must make a 
note or two on the Fourth Gospel’s account of the Jewish 
hearing. It extends from 18:12-28. All semblance of 
formal procedure is gone. The messianic issue, the very 
crux of the Jewish trial in the first three Gospels, does not 
appear. Jesus is not condemned to death for blasphemy 
as he is in the first three Gospels. To interrogate Jesus on 
the question of his messiahship in the Fourth Gospel 
would be an empty formality, for from the very first in 
this Gospel Jesus has claimed to be the Messiah before both 
friends and foes. Instead the high priest simply conducts 
a superficial investigation concerning Jesus’ following and 
teaching. (18:19-21.) There is no mocking of Jesus in 
connection with the Jewish trial in the Fourth Gospel; 
there is just a blow from an officer for Jesus’ curt word to 
the high priest. (18:22.) The Fourth Evangelist seems 
to think of the trial at night as the first two Gospels report 
it. (18:28b.) The whole account of the Jewish trial in 
the Fourth Gospel is in utter confusion. 

160 


Good Friday 


i. THE DELIVERY TO THE HIGH PRIEST. 
Matthew 26:57-58. Mar\ 14:53-54. Lu\e 22:54-55. 

Mark does not give us the name of the high priest at 
any point in his Gospel; Luke at no point in his account of 
the trial. (Cf. Luke 3:2.) Matthew names Caiaphas, in 
office 18-36 a.d. according to Josephus, as he did in the 
conspiracy back in 26:3 on Wednesday of the passion 
week. The Fourth Gospel has Jesus delivered to Annas, 
in office 7-14 a.d., although Caiaphas is high priest 
(18:13); only at the end of the Jewish hearing does Annas 
send Jesus to Caiaphas (18:24). Annas and Caiaphas are 
named together in Acts 4:6. 

In Matthew the Sanhedrin is already assembled when 
Jesus is brought as though the whole affair, arrest and 
trial, had been carefully prearranged. In Mark they as¬ 
semble immediately. Luke (22:66) has the more probable 
account with the assembly early in the morning. 

At this point all of the first three Gospels introduce 
Peter, following afar off. This breaks the thread of the 
narrative which should move from the delivery to the trial. 
The scene is all set for the denial which follows at once 
in Luke, but in Matthew and Mark the trial and the mock¬ 
ing intervene. In the first three Gospels Peter is the only 
disciple whose presence is noted in the court, but in the 
Fourth Gospel there is “ another disciple,” the unnamed 
and beloved, who is present and through whose influence 
(he is known to the high priest) Peter gains entrance to 
the court. (18:15-16.) 

161 


The Passion Week 

2. THE JEWISH TRIAL AT NIGHT . 

Matthew 26:59-66. Mar\ 14:55-64. 

The question of the legality of a trial at night has al¬ 
ready been mentioned. In Matthew and Mark the Jewish 
hearing goes through two stages — a sort of preliminary 
stage introducing false witnesses and alleged statements of 
Jesus against the temple; then comes the real issue, the 
messianic question. Matthew varies from Mark only in 
minor details. 

To all of the preliminary charges Jesus remains silent, 
even though his silence might be interpreted as an admis¬ 
sion of the truth of the things brought against him. For 
Christians generally the silence of Jesus in both trials has 
been one of the most impressive features. The Gospel 
writers were impressed with it, and certain Old Testament 
passages (Isa. 53:7; Ps. 38:12-14) may have occurred to 
them. Even the high priest and Pilate are deeply im¬ 
pressed. 

The heart of the Jewish hearing, the only part that 
Luke reports, is the messianic issue. The high priest puts 
to Jesus the question, “ Art thou the Christ, the son of the 
Blessed ? ” What is it that prompts the high priest to put 
this question? It has not grown out of the preliminary 
stages of the hearing. How has this hint come to the 
authorities’ ears? Did Judas inform them that Jesus re¬ 
garded himself as the Messiah, or that his intimate fol¬ 
lowers regarded him as such? The Gospel writers give 
us no answer to these questions. 

162 


Good Friday 

For the first time now before the high priest Jesus 
speaks. His reply in Mark 14:62, “lam.. .” is puzzling. 
It seems to be an open affirmative. As such it stands 
wholly isolated in Mark’s story. On every other occasion 
in Mark Jesus’ replies to messianic suggestions and confes¬ 
sions have been non-committal. Never once, in public or in 
private, has Jesus given a flat “ Yes ” or “ No ” to the mes¬ 
sianic question. In the light of his habitual reticence this 
one affirmative is unintelligible, especially when it seems 
to cost him his life. Why now, of all times, such positive¬ 
ness when on other occasions he was satisfied not to com¬ 
mit himself ? 

One cannot help but be skeptical of this single affirma¬ 
tive in Mark. Matthew (26:64) an d Luke (22:67,70) have 
Jesus give an evasive reply: “ Thou hast said ” (Matthew); 
“ Ye say that I am” (Luke). This evasion fits in with 
Jesus’ usual non-committal attitude. Further, the second 
part of Jesus’ reply in Mark, following the “ I am,” is a 
strongly adversative statement: “ and ye shall see the Son 
of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with 
the clouds of heaven.” In this conclusion Jesus is speak¬ 
ing, not of himself but of Another and in the light of it 
Mark’s “ I am ” seems to break down. Jesus’ reply to the 
high priest then becomes a final declaration of the faith 
that has held him from the first — the Son of man will 
come. (Matt. 10:23; Mark 9:1; 13:26.) Thus this state¬ 
ment relates itself in an organic way to other utterances of 
Jesus. 


163 


The Passion Week 

Whatever Jesus may have meant by his reply, the 
high priest in Matthew and Mark interprets it as blas¬ 
phemy. In all of the first three Gospels his reply is re¬ 
garded as an affirmative. In Matthew and Mark the high 
priest rends his garments as prescribed that he should do 
when blasphemy was spoken in his presence. (Lev. 
10:6; 21:10.) 

In Matthew and Mark the Jewish hearing closes with 
the notice that all condemned him to be worthy of death. 
Both seem to be thinking of a formal verdict and death 
sentence. We should expect the delivery to Pilate to fol¬ 
low at once, as it does in Luke, but in the first two Gospels 
the Jewish proceedings come during the night and the 
delivery to Pilate requires a second session, in the morning. 
(Matt. 27:1-2; Mark 15:1.) 


3. JESUS MOCKED AFTER THE JEWISH TRIAL. 
Matthew 26:67-68. Mar\ 14:65. 

After the Jewish trial the night is taken up in Mat¬ 
thew and Mark with the mocking of Jesus and the story of 
Simons denial. All of the first three Gospels agree that 
the mocking comes during the night. In Matthew and 
Mark it follows at once upon the Jewish trial; in Luke it 
immediately precedes it. The whole scene is an anticipa¬ 
tion of the mocking by the Roman soldiers with which the 
Roman trial ends in the first two Gospels. We noted that 
the Fourth Gospel has no mocking in connection with the 
164 


Good Friday 

Jewish trial, just a blow from an officer during the hear¬ 
ing. (18:22-23.) 

4. PETER'S DENIAL. 

Matthew 26:69-75. Mar\ 14:66-72. Lu\e 22:56-62. 

Now comes the denial of Peter in all of the first three 
Gospels. The scene was set once before in connection with 
the delivery to the high priest. (Matt. 26:58; Mark 14:54; 
Luke 22:54b~56.) But in Matthew and Mark the Jewish 
trial and the mocking have intervened and the scene must 
be reset. In Luke this interruption does not take place and 
the denial (22:56-62) follows at once upon the delivery to 
the high priest and Peter’s introduction into the scene 
(54-55). In all three Gospels, however, Simon’s denial 
comes during the night and is associated with the Jewish 
trial. 

The details are much the same in the first three Gos¬ 
pels. Matthew and Luke have only one cock-crow, as Jesus 
predicted. (Matt. 26:34; Luke 22:34.) In Mark the cock 
crows twice, as Jesus foretold. (14:30.) The first cock¬ 
crow comes after the first denial; the second after the third 
denial, as does the only one in Matthew and Luke. The 
two crowings in Mark increase the dramatic effect: even 
after a first warning, Simon goes ahead to deny his Master 
two more times. Luke omits Peter’s cursing in connection 
with the third denial, but he adds a wholly new feature 
— Jesus himself witnesses his disciple’s denials, thus 
increasing Peter’s utter humiliation. (22:61a.) In 

165 


The Passion Week 

Matthew and Luke Peter leaves the place; in all three 
he weeps. 

The account of Peter’s denial is split in the Fourth 
Gospel. The first denial (18:16-17) precedes the Jewish 
hearing; the second and third follow it (18:25-27). The 
Fourth Gospel agrees with Matthew and Luke in having 
but one cock-crow. The Fourth Gospel omits Peter’s curs¬ 
ing as Luke did, also the notice of his leaving the scene 
and his weeping. 

The denial of Peter is one of the most dramatic scenes 
in the Gospel story. In view of this disciple’s prominent 
place in Jesus’ company, his recent pledge of loyalty and 
his subsequent distinction, the account is very human and 
impressive. If the Gospel accounts go back in substance 
to Simon’s own story, we shall have to say that he did not 
spare himself. With this scene Peter disappears from the 
Gospel story. 

5. JESUS MOCKED BEFORE THE 
JEWISH TRIAL. 

Lu\e 22:63~65. 

In Luke the mocking follows the denial of Peter and 
precedes the Jewish trial; in Matthew and Mark we found 
exactly the reverse arrangement — trial, mocking, denial. 
In Luke Jesus is abused by the guards who hold him, not 
by the Jewish dignitaries as in Matthew and Mark; in 
Luke Jesus is not yet before them. The abuse in Luke 
does not express bitter feeling, as in the first two Gospels, 
166 


Good Friday 


but seems to be simply a means of passing the night until 
the Jewish legal body assembles at dawn. 

6. THE JEWISH TRIAL AT DAWN . 

Lu\e 22:66-71. 

Luke’s trial at dawn has probability in its favor over 
against the trial at night in Matthew and Mark. Luke’s 
account is much briefer due to his omission of the pre¬ 
liminary stages — the false witnesses and the alleged word 
against the temple in Matthew (26:59-61) and Mark 
(14:55-59). He also omits the special feature of Jesus’ 
silence and its impression on the high priest. (Matt. 
26:62; Mark 14:60.) The high priest does not question 
Jesus in Luke, but the Sanhedrin, “ they.” The hearing 
goes directly to the messianic issue, “ If thou art the Christ, 
tell us.” Jesus’ reply is not an answer, “ If I tell you, ye 
will not believe; and if I ask you, ye will not answer.” 
(22:67-68.) In Luke “ they ” put a second question to 
Jesus, not found in Matthew and Mark, “ Art thou then 
the Son of God ? ” Jesus’ reply is again non-committal, 
“ Ye say that I am.” (22:70.) Thus Matthew and Luke 
agree together against Mark’s affirmative answer; in both 
Jesus evades; as usual, he does not commit himself. Luke 
omits the closing features in Matthew and Mark — the 
idea of blasphemy, the rending of the garments and the 
formal death sentence. In Luke the Jewish case against 
Jesus is not clear. “ We have heard from his own mouth ” 
has no object. 


167 


The Passion Week 


7. THE DELIVERY TO PILATE. 

Matthew 27:1-2. Mar\ 15:1. Lu\e 23:1. 

This is the closing scene of the Jewish trial in all three 
Gospels. This is the second assembly of the Sanhedrin 
in Matthew and Mark, the first coming during the night 
when Jesus was tried and condemned. Just how the 
morning session is related to the previous assembly during 
the night is not clear. Luke, however, has just the one 
session, at dawn, and the delivery to Pilate (23:1) is simply 
its conclusion (22:66-71). Thus in Luke the Jewish and 
the Roman trials come immediately together in the early 
morning. There is a natural promptness in the whole 
proceeding in Luke that does not appear in Matthew and 
Mark with the trial during the night, a re-assembly of the 
Sanhedrin in the morning and then the Roman trial. 
This morning session must have been early and the Roman 
trial brief, for Jesus is crucified at 9:00 a.m. The exact 
locality of the trial before Pilate is not mentioned in the 
first three Gospels. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus is led from 
Caiaphas into the Praetorium. (18:28.) 


Looking back over the Jewish trial as a whole, we may 
call it at best a hearing or investigation. Matthew and 
Mark attempt to introduce features that would suggest 
formal legal procedure — the necessity for two witnesses, 
corroborating testimony, the offense of blasphemy and 
the high priest rending his garments. That a formal death 
168 


Good Friday 

sentence was not passed is clear in the Roman trial where 
the Jewish authorities appear before Pilate, not with a 
death sentence for ratification but with accusations and de¬ 
nunciations against Jesus, insisting on judgment against 
him. 

We cannot state definitely what happened before the 
Sanhedrin. The Gospel reports do not in any respect re¬ 
semble court records. They seem to give simply the com¬ 
mon Christian tradition of what happened, the tradition 
in circulation a generation after the event itself. Certainly 
the account is presented from the Christian angle alone. 
Some of the details suggest later Christian bitterness rather 
than historical probabilities. The Jewish court is pre¬ 
sented as both prosecutor and judge. It is surprising that 
the cleansing of the temple does not figure in the proceed¬ 
ings since it seems to have been the principal source of the 
opposition that led to Jesus’ death. If the entry on Palm 
Sunday had been generally regarded as messianic, it cer¬ 
tainly would have been introduced, for the Jewish case 
seems to center on the messianic issue. The Gospels leave 
full responsibility upon the Jews. They condemned an 
innocent man to death for what the early Christians held 
him to be — the Messiah of God. 

8. THE REMORSE AND SUICIDE OF JUDAS. 
Matthew 27:3-10. 

In Mark and Luke and John we hear no more of Judas 
after his appearance at the scene of the arrest, in Geth- 

169 


The Passion Week 

semane. Matthew, however, halts at this point and gives 
us the story of his terrible end. Matthew inserts it here at 
about the only available point, between the Jewish and the 
Roman trials. Still it interrupts the natural progress of 
the narrative. By inserting the story just after the Jewish 
proceedings Matthew casts a reflection on Jewish justice 
and enhances Jewish guilt. Judas repents his act; the chief 
priests and elders do not repent theirs. The promptness 
with which Judas takes his life would suggest that Mat¬ 
thew thinks of him as a witness of the Jewish trial. 

Matthew is the only Gospel writer who tells of the 
fate of Judas. Within the New Testament there is only 
one other account of the betrayer’s bitter end. It comes in 
a parenthetical passage in the midst of Peter’s speech in 
connection with the choice of a disciple to take Judas’ 
place. (Acts i :i8-i9.) The Acts account is much briefer 
and represents a wholly different strain of tradition con¬ 
cerning the betrayer’s fate. About the only things the 
two accounts have in common are the assumptions that 
Judas met a prompt death and that the money he received 
was used to buy a field. Matthew pictures Judas as re¬ 
pentant and remorseful; the Acts story does not. In Mat¬ 
thew Judas takes his own life; he is a suicide. In Acts, 
however, his death is accidental, better perhaps, providen¬ 
tial; he plunges headlong over a cliff. Thus the Acts 
account gives the betrayer a more grewsome and terri¬ 
ble end. 

There are other accounts of Judas’ fate outside of the 

170 


Good Friday 


New Testament. All of them are without doubt legen¬ 
dary, but they evince a rather lively interest in the fate of 
the faithless disciple who turned traitor against his Master. 
Judas never figures in the story of the beginnings and 
spread of earliest Christianity as do others of the twelve, 
and the general assumption of the early Christian writings, 
even when silent, is that Judas is off the scene forever. 
































I 











* 




I 
















\ 































•t 







CHAPTER IX 


GOOD FRIDAY 

Scene IV 
The Roman Trial 


os 


• • 




■a 


>H 

C 

Q § 
5 « 

Ph 

Q 
o 
o 
o 


« 




^■H 

« 

vj 

<o 


o 

J? 

°o 
<N 
• • 

tX 

<N 


ON 

I 

Oo 

• • 

°n 

<N 


°n 

oi 

nV 


<D 

34 

3 

hJ 


34 

u. 

03 


£ 

<L> 

33 

4 -> 

4-» 

03 


M 

• • 

on 

o* 


r 

<N 

• • 

in 


n no 

M M 


Tt- in 


oi 


on 


03 

on 

V 

oo 


a 

<u 

o 

o 

3 

3 


^ 3 

<U C/5 
4 -> QJ 

>? ^ 
Ph <L> 
u 

<D 03 

O ^ 

<J3 ^ 

aj n 

32 w 

c /5 « 

3 * 

00 «~H 


O 

M 


in 

<s 

i 

on 

<s 


3 






• 

oo 

m 

in 

M 

w 

1 




• 

• 

w 

1 

1* 

V 


1 

M 





1 

in 

ON O 

NO 

tk 

M 
• • 

r-s 

(S 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

M 

m (N 

n <s 

(S 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

. 

• .d 

«H 

• 


to 

C/5 

C3 

32 

32 

03 

in 

03 


<U 


HD 

O 

Vh 

<D 

ffi 'S 

£k 


-Q 

^ C/5 

H3 


C/5 

3 

1 s 

on 

1 

C/5 

3 

C/5 

03 

g 


1 

3 

rrt 

<L> 

^-~N 

o 


QJ 

> 


aj 

U< 

o 


<u <D 

Q 

c/5 

O g 

33 £ 

L-1 O 


3 

O 

• —4 
4-J 

03 

U 

03 

Q 

n3 

<N 


00 C 3 

I (L) ^ 

•S 

03 G 

bJD << 

< : 

<U <U 

4 -» > 

-2 o 

• *-H C /5 

n. c /5 v 

^ 03 ^ 

a ^ £ 

<P oj <u 

<D *-3 33 

ffl H H 


3 

O 

* 

4-» 

o3 

Uh 

o3 

T3 

<u 




"TD • 
<L> 

3 - 

6 2 
« <u 
TJ ;j2 
C 2 
o o 
u co 


CO 


2 h-i 

03 J, 
32 ^ 
JO 
03 

Ui 

03 

PQ 


E 


o 


c /5 

<U 

33 

c /5 

03 


00 ^ 
0J 

3 <L> 

3h 4 - j 
cr 03 
aj 73 

P< Ol 


•T3 

aj 

oo 

03 

P* 

00 

03 

32 

32 

03 

Ui 

03 

PQ 


<L) 

JG 

4-4 

T3 

CJ 

u 

o 


C/5 

3 

C/5 

<u 


1 

CO 

M 
• • 

CO 

2 
o 

< 

• *\ 

in 

M 

I 

, 3 _ 


T J» 
A “ 

m 


£ 


. 

M co 
#x I 
m rs 


M M Ch 2 s ON ON 

M M M M M 


*4 tO ^3 *4 T-* 


VO 


I 

CO 

ON 


al 

oo xi 

Cp NO 

CO 

CO 


^J“ 

a\ 


ON (N 

v r> •- 
I u 

On On oo 
<S (N co 


»h n on ^ in no nx on o m 


• oo 
TT <s 

m i 

-- • ■ •• •• 

OO OO oo oo (S 

M M M M •• 

, ^- 

c a a a ^ 

ti 

€5 ja o *o q 




















Xv A ARK’S account of the Roman trial is rather brief. 
(15:2-20.) Matthew (27:11-31) gives substantially the 
same account and shows his usual dependence on Mark in 
these closing scenes. Into the Markan account of the 
Roman trial Matthew inserts two passages found only in 
his Gospel — the intervention of Pilate’s wife in behalf 
of Jesus (27:19) and the incident of Pilate washing his 
hands (27:24-25). In the first two Gospels there is just 
a single scene in the Roman trial. Once Jesus is in the 
presence of Pilate he does not leave until he is condemned 
to death and delivered up for execution. Only Pilate, no 
other Roman official, figures in the trial of Jesus in Mat¬ 
thew and Mark. 

Throughout these last scenes we have seen that Luke 
goes his own way, giving his own account, quite inde¬ 
pendent of Mark. The same is true of his account of the 
Roman trial. (23:2-25.) His principal new feature is that 
he has Jesus not only before Pilate but before Herod also. 
The Roman trial in Luke falls into three separate scenes: 
first, before Pilate who sends Jesus to Herod when he 
learns that he is a Galilean (23:2-7); second, before Herod 
who sends Jesus back to Pilate (8-12); third, before Pilate 
again when Jesus is condemned to death and delivered up 
for execution (13-25). 


175 


The Passion Week 

The Roman trial in the Fourth Gospel takes on the 
form of a very elaborate account. It extends from 18:19 
to 19:16. The Fourth Evangelist agrees with Matthew and 
Mark in having Jesus before Pilate only; Herod does not 
figure. Otherwise, the Fourth Evangelist goes his own 
way in recounting what is said and done. He has his own 
peculiar plan in depicting the scene. In the first three Gos¬ 
pels our impression is that Jesus and his Jewish accusers 
stand together in the presence of Pilate. But in the Fourth 
Gospel the scene is divided. The Jews stand without the 
Praetorium making their accusations; they will not enter 
the Roman court lest they defile themselves and cannot 
eat the feast. Jesus is not in the presence of his accusers 
but within the Praetorium. Pilate connects this divided 
scene by appearing now outside before the Jewish accusers 
(18:29,38; 19:5,13), now with Jesus alone within (18:33; 
19:1, 9). Pilate hears the Jewish denunciations without; 
he interrogates Jesus within the Praetorium. Six separate 
scenes, public and private, are the result: 18:29-32, 33~38a, 
38b~4o; 19:1-7, 8-12, 13-16. These numerous shifts of 
scene along with new details make the Roman trial in the 
Fourth Gospel more dramatic. 

The Fourth Evangelist puts new words on the lips of 
all concerned — Jesus, Pilate and the Jewish accusers. In 
the first three Gospels Pilate extracts from Jesus only two 
meaningless words, “ Thou sayest.” But in the Fourth 
Gospel the silence of Jesus falls into the background 
(19:9b), and a series of words (18:34, 36, 37; 19:11) cross 
176 


Good Friday 

with the questions of Pilate (18:33, 35 ? 37; 19:10). Be¬ 
fore Pilate in private Jesus discourses on his kingdom 
which is not of this world (18:36), on the mission of truth 
that brought him into the world (18:37) and the power¬ 
lessness of Pilate to harm him except for the divine decree 
(19:11). 

In the Fourth Gospel Pilate puts new and different 
questions to Jesus apart from the question common to all 
four Gospels, “ Art thou the king of the Jews ? ” He asks, 
“ What hast thou done? ” (18:35.) “ Art thou a king 
then? ” (18:37.) Mate is a proud Roman: “Am I a 

Jew? ” (18:35.) He is a pagan philosopher: “ What is 
truth?” (18:38.) He is a Christian metaphysician: 
“ Whence art thou ? ” (19 .-9.) 

The scenes between Pilate and the Jews are a con¬ 
tinual bandying. Pilate taunts and derides the Jews 
and their case against Jesus. “Behold, the man!” 
(19:5.) “ Behold, your king! ” (19:14.) The title 

which Pilate composes for the cross is a final derision, 
not of Jesus but of the Jews, and they resent it as such. 
(19:19-22.) 

The attitude of the Jews toward Pilate is different 
from their attitude in the first three Gospels. Only once 
do they hint at their case against Jesus (19:7), and Pilate 
seeks to learn the trouble from Jesus rather than from his 
accusers (18:35). The Jewish attitude toward Pilate is 
rather that he should not inquire into the merits of the 
(18:30); the fact that they bring Jesus is enough. 

177 


case 


The Passion Week 

They even dare to intimidate Pilate and threaten to de¬ 
nounce him before the emperor (19:12). They end with 
a flourish of pro-Roman sentiment and loyalty — “We 
have no king but Caesar.” (19:15.) 


The different accounts of the Roman trial in the Gos¬ 
pels result in different pictures of Pilate. Mark’s picture 
seems most probable in which Pilate appears as an indif¬ 
ferent and impartial Roman official. He does not seem to 
be especially impressed with the Jewish charges; he seems 
to sense the nature of the whole situation. (15:10.) Yet 
he does not appear as a champion of Jesus’ innocence, nor 
does he seek to save him. He seems to consent to Jesus’ 
death in order to preserve the civil peace, “ wishing to 
content the multitude ” (15:15) —the most precious pos¬ 
session in any Roman province. 

In Matthew the picture of Pilate is greatly altered by 
the introduction of the two new features. Pilate’s wife 
intervenes because Jesus is an innocent man. (27:19.) 
Pilate publicly washes his hands of the blood of Jesus. 
(27:24-25.) In Matthew, then, Pilate appears as a weak¬ 
ling. He is convinced of Jesus’ innocence yet he lacks the 
courage or the power to save him. 

This picture is painted in still bolder colors in the 
third Gospel. Luke presents Pilate as the avowed friend 
of Jesus. Three times he declares Jesus innocent. (23:4, 
14, 22.) He seeks to save Jesus’ life and proposes to com- 
178 


Good Friday 

promise by scourging. (23:16, 22.) Throughout, Luke 
seeks to relieve Pilate of all responsibility for Jesus’ death 
and load it on to the Jews. Yet he accomplishes this only 
at the expense of Pilate’s character. 

The Fourth Evangelist’s picture of Pilate, apart from 
the new features already mentioned, is taken from the 
third Gospel. Three times, too, the Fourth Evangelist has 
Pilate declare Jesus innocent (18:38; 19:4, 6), and he seeks 
to release him (19:12). But Pilate finally allows himself 
to be intimidated by political threats which he knows 
express a hypocritical loyalty. 

1. JESUS BEFORE PILATE . 

Matthew 27:11-14. Mar\ 15:2-5. Luke 23:2-3. 

One has the impression that the materials in this pas¬ 
sage of Matthew and Mark should be reversed. The accu¬ 
sations of the chief priests and Jesus’ silence (Mark 
I 5 : 3 ~ 5 ) should precede Pilate’s question and Jesus’ answer 
(15 .*2). This arrangement we find in Luke. 

Matthew and Mark tell us that the chief priests 
charged Jesus with many things; just what things is not 
stated. To these preliminary charges Jesus makes no re¬ 
ply. Luke, however, elaborates on these charges. (23:2.) 
They are exclusively political and would put Jesus in the 
light of a revolutionist dangerous to the Roman rule. He 
perverts the Jewish people. He forbids payment of tribute 
to Rome — the exact opposite of what Jesus said in Luke 
20:25. He claims to be Christ a king, although his answer 

179 


The Passion Week 

was wholly evasive before the Jewish authorities (Luke 
22:70). 

In all four Gospels Pilate puts the question, “ Art thou 
the king of the Jews? ” This question shows that the 
messianic issue is the crux of the Jewish charges in the 
Roman trial as well as before the Sanhedrin. It is clear 
later in the inscription over the cross in all four Gospels. 
In their own court the Jews interpreted it as blasphemy, 
a religious offense, but before Pilate they present the mes¬ 
sianic issue as a political crime. 

In all of the first three Gospels Jesus’ reply, “ Thou 
sayest,” is his only word before Pilate. Is this an affirma¬ 
tive or a negative ? An admission or a denial ? The same 
uncertainty appears here that we met in Jesus’ reply to the 
high priest. It is probably evasive, and we do not know 
what was in Jesus’ mind in uttering it. How Pilate inter¬ 
preted this enigmatic reply we do not know. If as an 
affirmative, surely he would have condemned Jesus at 
once. Yet the fact remains that the Jewish authorities, 
one way or another, secured the Roman death sentence. 

2. PILATE DECLARES JESUS INNOCENT . 

Lu\e 23:4. 

With this brief passage we come to the first of Luke’s 
two new features in the Roman trial, Pilate’s repeated 
declarations of Jesus’ innocence. (23:14,22.) This theme 
of Jesus’ innocence Luke carries on through the cruci¬ 
fixion scene; the dying thief (23:41), the centurion at the 

180 


Good Friday 


cross (23147) and Joseph of Arimathea (23 .*51). This first 
of the three declarations by Pilate follows at once upon 
Jesus’ “ Thou sayest ” which Pilate apparently does not re¬ 
gard as an affirmative. 

Luke here introduces the multitudes as though the 
case of Jesus on trial had aroused the whole city. The 
presence of the general public Luke carries on through to 
the very end with a climax in a general public demonstra¬ 
tion of grief over the fate of Jesus. (23:13, 27, 35, 48.) 

3. THE DELIVERY TO HEROD. 

Lu\e 23:5-7. 

Now we meet Luke’s second new feature in the Ro¬ 
man trial — the delivery to Herod. This tradition is 
wholly peculiar to the third Gospel and its companion 
work, the book of Acts (4:27-28). The fresh charges 
here are occasioned by Pilate’s first declaration of Jesus’ 
innocence. These charges remain political and the whole 
of Jesus’ activity, in Galilee as well as in Jerusalem, is pre¬ 
sented as that of a trouble-making insurrectionist. This 
is the only instance in which the Galilean activity of Jesus 
figures in the trials. The Jerusalem enemies of Jesus 
otherwise seem to be ignorant of his work in the north 
province, or else they deliberately ignore it. Their issues 
against him seem to have had an exclusively Jerusalem 
origin and setting. 

Pilate learns for the first time of Jesus’ Galilean origin. 
He sends Jesus to Herod whom only Luke mentions as 

181 


The Passion Week 

present in Jerusalem. The purpose of Pilate in this trans¬ 
fer is not clear. Luke seems to regard it as a legal tech¬ 
nicality — Jesus is of Herod’s jurisdiction — perhaps only 
an official compliment or nicety. (Luke 23:12.) 

The Fourth Gospel has a transfer from one official 
to another, but it comes in the Jewish trial, not the Roman 
— Annas to Caiaphas. (18:24.) 

4. JESUS BEFORE HEROD . 

Lu\e 23:8-12. 

This is the second of Luke’s three scenes in the Ro¬ 
man trial over against the single scene before Pilate in 
Matthew and Mark. This scene, according to Luke, ful¬ 
fils Herod’s desire to see Jesus, first expressed back in 9:9 
(Luke only). Among the Gospel writers Luke takes the 
greatest interest in Herod, and in Luke alone does Herod 
manifest any interest in Jesus. In only one passage does 
he represent Herod as hostile toward Jesus. (13:31-32.) 
Among the women in Jesus’ following Luke alone men¬ 
tions one Joanna, the wife of Chuzas, Herod’s steward. 
(8:1-3.) Herod’s name does not occur in the Fourth Gos¬ 
pel. In Matthew (14:1) and Mark (6:14) he confuses in 
a superstitious manner Jesus and John the Baptist. 

The one new feature is that Luke has Jesus mocked 
before Herod. In Matthew and Mark this mocking con¬ 
cludes the Roman trial and comes only when Jesus is con¬ 
demned and delivered up for execution. 

The scene before Herod marks no real progress in the 

182 



Good Friday 

Roman proceedings. Herod simply sends Jesus back to 
Pilate, and we are no farther along than we were at the 
close of the first scene before Pilate. According to Luke, 
this little deference of Pilate heals a breach between him 
and his subordinate. Also, it recruits one other witness 
for Jesus’ innocence. (23:15.) 

5. BEFORE PILATE AGAIN - 
SECOND DECLARATION. 

Lu\e 23:13-16. 

This passage opens Luke’s third scene in the Roman 
trial. Jesus is before Pilate again who reviews the case 
thus far. He reports the findings of Herod as though the 
Jewish accusers had not been present at the hearing. 
(23:10.) Pilate makes his second declaration of Jesus’ in¬ 
nocence and interprets Herod’s return of Jesus as another 
official declaration, an inference that the scene before 
Herod does not make wholly clear. 

6. THE PASSOVER AMNESTY — BAR ABB AS. 
Matthew 27:15-18. Mar\ 15:6-10. 

Luke’s elaborate digression from the accounts of Mat¬ 
thew and Mark is over. From this point on Mark’s plan 
governs the course of the proceedings. At this point in 
Matthew and Mark the Roman trial takes a new turn. 
Less attention is given the Jewish charges against Jesus, 
yet his Jewish accusers secure his death sentence through 
this new turn — the Passover amnesty. Now a multitude 

183 


The Passion Week 

comes to the front; the chief priests fall into the back¬ 
ground and incite the multitude in order to accomplish 
their own end. The scene before Pilate loses the charac¬ 
ter of a legal proceeding with accusers and accused con¬ 
fronting each other. It develops almost into *a mob scene, 
Pilate confronted by a multitude whose feeling runs bitter 
and strong in making their demands for Barabbas’ release 
and Jesus’ death. 

The role of the general public here in bringing about 
Jesus’ death in Matthew and Mark really contradicts the 
notices of the popularity that has protected him during 
the Jerusalem days and the original caution of the chief 
priests — “ not during the feast, lest haply there shall be a 
tumult of the people.” (Mark 14:2.) Or is the multitude 
here just a crowd of Barabbas’ sympathizers who assemble 
to demand his release and not to witness the trial of Jesus ? 
In Luke the instrumentality of the multitudes in accom¬ 
plishing the ends of the Jewish authorities does not appear. 
In the death scene that follows Luke distinguishes, as Mat¬ 
thew and Mark do not, between the public feeling and 
that of Jesus’ enemies. The Fourth Evangelist does not 
use the multitudes as Matthew and Mark do; he does not 
distinguish between the people and the authorities as Luke 
does. In his long account of the Roman trial he mentions 
the authorities but twice (19:6, 15); elsewhere in the pro¬ 
ceedings it is the “ Jews ” in general who are denouncing 
Jesus before Pilate and demanding his death. 

The custom of releasing a prisoner at the time of the 
184 


Good Friday 

Passover (the Passover amnesty) is not known in any writ¬ 
ings outside of the New Testament. This custom does not 
appear in Luke’s account, although Barabbas is released. 
The custom may have been purely local and confined to 
Jerusalem. It may have obtained only temporarily under 
Pilate’s administration. At any rate, Mark and Matthew 
refer to it as well known; both halt a moment to explain 
it, for it accounts for what follows. 

Matthew and Mark introduce Barabbas in connection 
with the Passover amnesty, Luke only in connection with 
the request itself. Matthew speaks of him as “ a -notable 
prisoner in Mark he lies bound in prison for leading an 
insurrection in which blood was shed. Luke’s identifica¬ 
tion is the same as that of Mark except that the insurrec¬ 
tion took place in the city itself. (23:19.) Just what in¬ 
surrection or revolt we do not know. 

At the close of this passage Matthew and Mark give 
us their hints as to Pilate’s thought and feelings. He sees 
through the perfidy of the chief priests, shows perhaps a 
trace of favor toward Jesus, but not strong. Pilate is pic¬ 
tured as “ stern, pitiless and cruel ” in writings outside of 
the New Testament. 

This scene has its parallel in the Fourth Gospel in 
18:39-40. There is no explanation of the Passover am¬ 
nesty, but it is referred to by Pilate as a custom. Pilate 
takes the initiative in proposing the release of Jesus, but 
the Jews suggest Barabbas, who, the Fourth Evangelist 
explains, was a robber. 


185 


The Passion Week 

7. THE INTERVENTION OF PILATE'S WIFE. 
Matthew 27:19. 

Matthew at this point, between Mark 15:10 and 11, 
inserts the first of his two new features in the Roman trial 
— the intervention of Pilate’s wife in behalf of Jesus. 
This is the only piece of New Testament tradition to this 
effect. In the later apocryphal literature the incident is 
elaborated and her name is given as Claudia Procula. Still 
later she became a saint of the Greek and Ethiopian 
church. Her intervention has no influence on the out¬ 
come of the proceedings. Matthew seems interested in 
her as a Roman witness of Jesus’ innocence. 

8 . THE REQUEST FOR BARABBAS — 

THIRD DECLARATION . 

Matthew 27:20-23. Mar\ 15:11-14. Lu\e 23:18-23 a. 

In Luke this scene seems to be between Pilate and the 
Jewish authorities; the general public as a howling mob 
does not figure. The Jewish accusers demand the release 
of Barabbas. Luke at this point completes his picture of 
Pilate. For the third time he declares Jesus innocent 
(23:4,14); for the second time he proposes to chastise and 
release him (23:16, 22). 

In Matthew and Mark we have a mob scene. The 
Jewish authorities drop back to urge the crowd on. It 
seems strange that this crowd should lend itself so readily 
to the ends of the enemies of Jesus. We might naturally 
suppose that the appearance of the general public would 
186 


Good Friday 


thwart the plans of the authorities. But here the crowd is 
turned into a mob thirsting for Jesus’ blood. Is this 
change in public sentiment in such a short time conceiv¬ 
able? Or is it just an element in the passion drama of 
Matthew and Mark ? From the dramatic point of view 
this change from public favor to general public hostility 
creates no serious problem. Have not the readers of Mat¬ 
thew and Mark been told of Judas’ betrayal, of the deser¬ 
tion of the disciples, of Peter’s denial ? Is it strange, as a 
part of the story, that the people now turn against him? 
But the public hostility here is perhaps too bitter, for Jesus 
becomes almost a victim of popular demand. Why is 
Barabbas so popular? Was he sentenced for a revolt that 
had public favor ? Or is his popularity just another part 
of the drama ? 

Pilate seems unconvinced of Jesus’ guilt, “ Why, what 
evil hath he done ? ” This question hardly fits the situa¬ 
tion, for the choice between Jesus and Barabbas presup¬ 
poses that Jesus too is condemned. Or is Pilate simply 
heckling the crowd ? If so, it is rather foolish in view of 
the crowd’s ugly mood. A fresh outburst of fury answers 
him. They demand the worst of deaths, a Roman cruci¬ 
fixion, reserved for the worst of criminals. This prepares 
the way for the death scene. 

In the Fourth Gospel there are two such outbursts, 
demanding death by crucifixion (19:4-7, 14-15), but they 
come from the Jews who push their case against Jesus, not 
from the Passover mob as in Matthew and Mark. 

187 


The Passion Week 

9. PILATE WASHES HIS HANDS. 

Matthew 27:24-25. 

At this point Matthew inserts the second of his two 
new elements in the Roman trial, between Mark 15:14 
and 15. Both concern Pilate and his wife. (27:19.) Ac¬ 
cording to Matthew, they are a miserable pair. The one 
is troubled by evil omens in dreams, the other by a bad 
conscience. Matthew now pictures Pilate in an act of des¬ 
peration. He is convinced of Jesus’ innocence, but he is 
helpless. All he can do is to absolve his soul. The proba¬ 
bility of a stern Roman official performing such a dis¬ 
tinctly Jewish act (Deut. 21:6-7; Ps. 26:6; 73:13) is not 
very great. This scene comes at the expense of Pilate’s 
character; he is turned into a moral weakling. 

10. BARABBAS RELEASED — 

JESUS CONDEMNED. 

Matthew 27:26. Mar\ 15:15. Lu\e 23:2^-25. 

At this point the tension snaps. Jesus is condemned. 
In Matthew and Mark Pilate yields to the demands of the 
mob. Mark introduces his only motive for Pilate’s con¬ 
demnation of Jesus: he wishes to content the multitude. 
Civil peace was more precious than the life of a Galilean 
Jew. In Luke it is the voices of the Jewish authorities that 
prevail. Luke emphasizes the shamefulness of the choice 
— Barabbas for Jesus, as he does in Acts 3:13-14. In Luke 
we might think that Pilate delivers Jesus up to the Jews 
for execution. This is still more clearly the meaning of 
188 




Good Friday 

the Fourth Evangelist. (19:16.) This cannot be histori¬ 
cal. Luke omits the scourging reported by Matthew and 
Mark. This was the first step in the Roman execution of 
a condemned criminal. In the Fourth Gospel the scourg¬ 
ing comes not at the close but toward the middle of the 
proceedings. (19:1.) 

11. JESUS MOCKED BY THE SOLDIERS. 

Matthew 27 .‘27-31. Mar\ 15:16-20. 

Luke omits the mocking of Jesus by the soldiers at the 
close of the Roman trial reported by Matthew and Mark. 
Luke had Jesus mocked before Herod. (23:11.) In the 
Fourth Gospel this mocking does not come at the close 
but in the third of the six scenes. (19:2-3.) In Matthew 
and Mark there is a shift in scene. Jesus is brought within 
the Praetorium as though all the proceedings thus far had 
been before it. Jesus is now out of Jewish hands. 

Both Matthew and Mark pass over the scourging 
with a hasty notice as though it were something horrible, 
and it was. But both go into great detail in the scene 
which seems to have included no great violence. The 
mocking appears more as a rough-and-ready sport of the 
soldiers. The idea of a simple Galilean as a king may have 
appealed to them as humorous. In Mark the mockery 
is mingled with light abuse; in Matthew it turns into 
rougher abuse at the close. 


189 


The Passion Week 

In reviewing the Roman case and action against Jesus 
we find that it is not much clearer than the account of the 
Jewish trial. The account in the Gospels is the commonly 
known and circulated tradition of the early Christian 
community. We can be sure of only the principal point: 
Jesus was tried before Pilate and condemned to death. 
The details of the proceedings are no longer clear. The 
various factors that secured Jesus’ condemnation are not 
certain, whether his reply to the messianic question of 
Pilate, Barabbas, or the popular demand for his death. 

The whole proceeding must have transpired very rap¬ 
idly, for Jesus is delivered to Pilate early in the morning 
and he is crucified at 9:00 a.m. The Fourth Gospel has 
Jesus delivered up for execution “ about the sixth hour,” 
noon. (19:14.) 


190 


CHAPTER X 


GOOD FRIDAY 

Scene V 
The Crucifixion 


GOOD FRIDAY 


$ 
• • 
°0 
C* 


V 
• • 
°o 


T 1 

K, 

• • 

<=o 

"Se* 

■d 


<L> 


w 

co 

i 

G\ 

co 

1 

co vo 

r r 



-*r vo 
in in 

i i 

d4 

r -4 

VO 

ik 

<N 

1 

in 

o 

1 

• oo 

o\ 

o 

in 

r-> 

<N 
• • 

co 

<S 

CO 

co 



• ^t- 


in 

in 


(S 


u, 

a 



• in 

• <N 

i 

(N 

CO 

vA 

• r-N 

• co 


• w 

• Tt- 

vo 



M 

• 

• <N 

, | 

• co OO 

ov 

• i 




<s 
• • 

in 

HH 

• (N 

(S 

• CO CO 

co 






Si 

•2 

x 

• ** 
<0 

<0 

•C 


<b 

co 




• in 

• o 

co 


• vo o 

vo 

aj 


• ro 

• in 

in 


• m vo 

vo 

4-> 

<s 

• CO VO 

• 1 
• in 

1 

M 


1 1 

• in n h 

1 

IN 

4-> 

cd 

co 

CO CO 

• Tf 

in 

in 

• in in vo 

vo 

s 

Kn 

<s 








<u 

d 

<D 

Vh 


o 

o 

<-M 

o 

O 

o 

d 

o 

o 

g 


• 

CO 


M 

ci 


*0 

CO 

V) 

O 

u 

o 

<u 

dd 


co 

CO 

O 

U« 

u 

<u 

dd 


as 


d 
o 

• *-< . , 

x T 5 

ti ^ 
d o 

oS 

CO 

<L> ^ 

dd £ 

H ^ 


d 
o 

Ih 

O 

4-> 

O 
o 3 

M —4 

JJ 
ct aj 

S Q 

<D <u 
dd dd 

H H 


03 

■“O 

d 

<u 



C/3 

(U 


• CO 

• O 

i-H 

d 


: O 

4—> 

• H 

4-» 

a) 

• (L) 


co 

d 

• M 

4-J 

S 

CO 

4-» 


<D 

co o3 

(U 


d ^ 

dd 

M-l 

bX3 G 

4-> 

o 

. —i o 
oo •- 

O 

4-> 

03 

4-i S 

C s 

M-J 

(U 

• v-4 


CO 


<u 

CJ 


<L) 

d dd 

< H 


CO 

<L> 

co 

co 

<D 

d 


CO 

a 3 

d 

<D 


o 

£ 

d 

a 3 

<U 


U. CTJ 

O O 

v <u 

M JC 

H H 


CO 

<D 

CO 

CO 

<L> 

d 


to 

CO 

d 

co 

<L> 


as 

• »~4 

u. 

d 

CQ 

<L> 

d3 

H 


CO 

03 

d 

<D 


Ut 

<u 

dd 

o 

d 

a, 

CL) 

CO 

<D 

dd 


d 

a3 
aj 
• »—« 
3 

o 

<u 

H 


as 

J3 

o 

4 —> 

03 


<L> 

dd 

H 


03 

in 

cs 

I 

CO 

<N 

#\ • 

• oo • • rN • 

M H M N ^ 

. I cs co I ^ 

I ct 3 Jz | | Jz | 

1"n l> On oo m oo 

M M H M CJ n co 

C\ 0\ Q\ 0 \ C\ q\ G\ 

►H W h-, W HH M W 

C fi fi C C c 

jd d x ^ d ^ d 

O O c o O o o 


cj ,Q o 'O a> 


to 


M M ro ^1- In VO OO On O M d ro 




( 

























JLvAATTHEW and Mark give practically the same 
account of Jesus’ death; they differ only in minor de¬ 
tails. Matthew’s principal additions are the earthquake 
(27:51)3-53) and the watch at the sepulcher (27:62-66). 
While Luke has parallels to all the Markan materials in 
the death scene, he nevertheless seems to be going his own 
way, giving his own account quite independent of Mark. 
His principal omissions are the first drink offered Jesus 
(Mark 15:23) and Mark’s only word of Jesus’ on the 
cross (15:34.) Luke adds some new materials: the proph¬ 
ecy over the daughters of Jerusalem (23:27-31), the special 
scene between Jesus and the dying malefactor (23:40-43), 
and the presence, sympathy and sorrow of the people 
(23:27, 35, 48). Most important of all, Luke puts wholly 
new words on the lips of the dying Jesus. (23:34, 43, 46.) 

The Fourth Gospel (19:17-42) has its own account 
with some familiar matter omitted, some altered, still 
other matter added that has no parallels in the other Gos¬ 
pels: The Fourth Gospel omits the first drink of Mark 
(15:23), the mocking at the cross (15:29-31), the darkness 
i, at noonday (15:33), the rending of the veil of the temple 
(15:38) and the confession of the centurion (15:39)* He 
reproduces none of the words ascribed to Jesus on the cross 

193 


The Passion Week 

in the first three Gospels. The Fourth Evangelist adds a 
new scene that centers about the wording of the super¬ 
scription (19:19-22), the seamless robe (i9:23b-24), new 
witnesses of Jesus’ death (19:25-27) and the spear thrust 
(19:34). On the lips of the dying Jesus he places three 
wholly new utterances. (19:26-27, 28, 30.) 

In the four Gospels we have three different and dis¬ 
tinct pictures of the dying Jesus. These divergent pictures 
are clear in the words ascribed to Jesus on the cross. 

In Matthew (27:46) and Mark (15:34) we have one 
and the same picture of the dying Jesus, one and the same 
last word: 

“ My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? ” 

According to the first two Gospels, Jesus dies as he has 
lived, in the throes of severest personal struggle. His one 
intelligible utterance is the Psalmist’s ancient cry of ele¬ 
mental human distress (22:1), mere man in the presence 
of his Mighty Maker. Such a cry — a prayer of protest — 
is natural and fits the terrible suffering of body and torture 
of soul that such a death involved. This picture of Mark is 
highly realistic — theology cannot do much with it — but 
certainly it is deeply impressive and true to all that we 
know of Jesus. 

Luke has his own special picture of the dying Jesus. 
He omits Mark’s cry of distress and puts on Jesus’ lips 
three new words, the first and last of which are prayers: 

194 


Good Friday 

“ Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” 

(23:34)- 

“ To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” (23:43.) 

“ Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” (23:46.) 1 

In Luke Jesus dies calm and composed. With his latest 
breath he dispenses forgiveness to those who put him to 
death; he promises a prompt Paradise to a fellow-victim; 
at the last he calmly commits his spirit to the Father whom 
he has always trusted. Luke’s picture is highly idealistic, 
yet it too is just as deeply impressive and true to all that we 
know of Jesus. In Luke Jesus dies as he has lived — lov¬ 
ing, forgiving, assured and confident. 

There has been a great deal of debate about these 
two pictures. Usually one (Luke’s) has been rejected in 
favor of the other (Mark’s). But the question arises, Are 
these two pictures mutually exclusive, irreconcilable ? On 
the basis of literary criticism they are, for we have very 
evidently two different accounts. However, when we ap¬ 
proach these two pictures from the standpoint of the psy¬ 
chology of the experience involved, from the point of view 
of a living and believing personality in its dying hour, 
they are not necessarily contradictory. The key to these 
pictures is to be found in the fact that, with one exception, 
these dying words in the first three Gospels are prayers. 
In these paradoxical prayers a fundamental psychological 

1 On these dying words of Jesus, see : Bundy, The Religion of Jesus , p. 25 ff; 
Our Recovery of Jesus , p. 315 ff. 


195 



The Passion Week 

law is operating: namely, a tense mental state or feel¬ 
ing may, upon full and spontaneous release, revert into 
its emotional opposite. The history and psychology of 
prayer teach us that a state of distress that discharges itself 
in a protest to God (Mark) may revert for the one who 
makes it into a state of confidence and composure (Luke). 
The pictures of the dying Jesus in Matthew and Mark over 
against that of Luke are companion pieces. Both are true 
to all that we know of Jesus and his experience of religion. 
It takes the one to complete the other. 

The picture of the dying Jesus in the Fourth Gospel 
stands apart from the twofold picture in the first three 
Gospels. As in Luke, the Jesus of John dies calm, con¬ 
fident and composed. However, it is not a confidence and 
composure that is won out of severe religious struggle; it 
is the pre-human purpose that brought him to this hour 
that carries him through it. Not one of the three dying 
words of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is a prayer. They are 
all new, colorless, passionless, and they reflect nothing of 
the actual historical situation in which he finds himself. 
They are: 

“ Woman, behold, thy son! ” “ Behold, thy mother! ” 
(19:26,27.) 

“ I thirst.” (19:28.) 

“ It is finished.” (19:30.) 

Such utterances manifest a feeling of superiority to the 
actual circumstances of crucifixion. They are almost 
196 


Good Friday 


stoical. The Jesus of John dies triumphantly, clearly con¬ 
scious of the fact that his work has been perfectly done, 
fully finished. It was not history but theology that gave 
the Fourth Evangelist his picture of the dying Jesus. But 
his picture is at least consistent, for he has Jesus die as he 
has had him live — above all human limitations and con¬ 
flict, a stranger to genuine human anguish and pain. He 
departs this life as he has lived it, not a real sharer of our 
common human experience, for he is just a sojourner on 
earth, living always in the thought of what was his before 
the world was and longing to return to it. The Jesus of 
the Fourth Gospel does not live a real human life, and he 
does not die a real human death. 

i. SIMON OF CYRENE. 

Matthew 27:32. Mar\ 15:21. Lu\e 23:26. 

In the death scene three new characters are intro¬ 
duced. They won for themselves a permanent place in 
the story because of services rendered or statements made 
in connection with Jesus’ death. The first is Simon of 
Cyrene who carried Jesus’ cross. The second is the 
unnamed Roman centurion who made his confession 
at the cross. The third is Joseph of Arimathea who 
took Jesus’ body down from the cross and laid it in a 
tomb. 

Simon of Cyrene appears as a Jew of North Africa. 
Mark introduces him as the father of Alexander and 
Rufus, as though these two men were known to the origi- 

197 


The Passion Week 

nal readers of the second Gospel. He is pressed into serv¬ 
ice as he is on his way into the city. 

Simon of Cyrene does not figure in the Fourth Gos¬ 
pel, according to which Jesus carried his own cross to the 
place of execution. This notice fits better the Roman 
practice as we read of it in Roman and Jewish sources out¬ 
side of the New Testament, in which the condemned vic¬ 
tim carries his own cross. The common Christian idea 
that Jesus started to bear his own cross, fell under the 
weight of it and that Simon of Cyrene was then pressed 
into service is a harmonization of these two conflicting 
notices. This would leave Jesus a weak, worn and ex¬ 
hausted figure, for which conception there is no New 
Testament basis. We have simply two conflicting reports. 
According to the first three Gospels, Jesus’ cross is carried 
for him. According to John, he carries it to the place of 
execution without assistance. The frail, emaciated Jesus 
of Christian art and conception nowhere appears in the 
Gospel story. 

2. VIA DOLOROSA. 

Lu\e 23:27-32. 

Luke is the only Gospel writer who reports any 
words of Jesus on the way to the cross. During these 
last dramatic scenes, from Gethsemane on, we have 
had very few utterances of Jesus. These few have been 
very brief, always within the compass of a single short 
sentence. But Luke now inserts, between Mark 15:21 

198 


Good Friday 

and 22, a rather extended prophecy over the Holy 
City. 

Luke’s via dolorosa is more dramatic than that in the 
other Gospels. The procession to the cross is followed by 
a “ great multitude of the people, and of women who be¬ 
wailed and lamented him.” (23:27.) Luke alone intro¬ 
duces this sympathetic and grieving public in the death 
scene. (23:35a, 48.) They have not cried for his blood 
before Pilate as did the mob in Matthew and Mark. 
Luke’s via dolorosa is also more colorful, for he adds the 
two fellow-victims as a part of the procession to the place 
of execution. In Matthew and Mark they are not men¬ 
tioned on the way to the cross. 

3. THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 

Matthew 27:33-35. Mar\ 15:22-25. Luke 23:33-34. 

The place of execution is Golgotha. Its exact location 
cannot be determined today. An execution within the 
city limits would have defiled the city and its people. 
Thus Jesus suffers, as the author of Hebrews says, “ with¬ 
out the gate.” (13:12.) 

In Matthew and Mark the first drink in the death 
scene is offered Jesus. Luke and the Fourth Evangelist 
omit this first drink. In Mark Jesus refuses it outright; in 
Matthew he tastes it and then refuses it. This drink was 
offered out of humanitarian motives. It was a mixture in¬ 
tended to deaden the nerves of the victim and thus dimin¬ 
ish the terrible pain of death by crucifixion. Whether it is 

199 


The Passion Week 

offered by the Romans or the Jews is not clear. It does not 
seem to have been a regular ministration of the Romans 
to crucified victims. Outside of the New Testament it 
appears only in cases within Palestine. 2 

The most interesting thing about this benumbing 
drink is Jesus’ refusal of it. It furnishes us one of our finest 
glimpses into his personality. He does not wish to die 
with his senses in a stupor. He prefers to remain in clear 
consciousness. He will fight the last great fight of his life 
in full possession of his faculties. 

Luke mentions the malefactors for a second time. 
(23:32, 33b.) They are crucified with Jesus. The three 
crosses form a group with that of Jesus in the center. Mat¬ 
thew and Mark reserve this notice for the mocking scene. 

In 23:34 we have Luke’s first word of Jesus on the 
cross, a prayer — “ Father, forgive them for they know 
not what they do.” This word is not found in some of the 
best manuscripts of the third Gospel, and Luke is the only 
Gospel writer who puts this utterance on the lips of Jesus. 
Many scholars regard it as a later interpolation, an exem¬ 
plification of his own teaching on forgiveness. (Luke 
6:28.) However, we may not separate the teaching from 
the teacher. Forgiveness in the experience of Jesus was 
not just a moral maxim but one phase of the religious 
spirit for the living of the whole of human life and 
surrendering it. This tradition of Jesus forgiving his 
enemies with his latest breath springs up at another 

2 Cf. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 352. 


200 


Good Friday 

point, in the death of Stephen who emulates his Lord. 
(Acts 7:60.) 

The clothes of the victim go to the executioners. 
They cast lots for them. This brief notice in the first three 
Gospels the Fourth Evangelist develops into a special 
scene. (19:23-253.) The garments are divided among 
four soldiers. The lots are cast for the “ seamless robe,” 
mentioned only in the Fourth Gospel, thus fulfilling 
Psalm 22:18. 

Mark tells us that Jesus is crucified at the third hour 
of the Jewish day, 9:00 a.m. Matthew and Luke omit this 
notice of time. The Fourth Evangelist is thinking of a 
later hour, for it is about the sixth hour, noon (19:14), 
when the Roman trial reaches its final stage. Through 
this last day of light Mark takes us by periods of three 
hours: the crucifixion at 9:00 a.m. (15:25); darkness falls 
at the sixth hour, noon (33); Jesus dies at 3:00 p.m. (34); 
his body is taken down and laid in a tomb before the close 
of the Jewish day, 6:00 p.m. (43). 

If Jesus’ execution had been in the hands of the Jew¬ 
ish authorities he would have been stoned to death, as was 
Stephen. (Acts 7:54-8:13.) Crucifixion was a Roman 
method of carrying out the death penalty. Cicero de¬ 
scribes it as cruel and horrifying, Tacitus as utterly des¬ 
picable. The exact form and method of crucifixion was 
not fixed but varied considerably as sources outside of the 
New Testament attest. Our common idea, supported by 
record, is that of the upright post with the hands tied or 


201 


The Passion Week 

nailed to the crossbar, the feet fastened or nailed to the 
upright. Death for the victim would come slowly. It 
would result from the sheer exhaustion of shattered nerves 
and terrible physical pain. Another method of crucifixion 
is also attested. Just an upright post was used. The hands 
of the victim were nailed, or fastened otherwise, above the 
head; the feet were fastened below, resting sometimes 
lightly on a footboard to relieve the weight of the body 
from the hands. Death by this method would result more 
quickly. Breathing would rapidly become more difficult 
and within a few hours death would result from a process 
of slow strangulation. The fact that Jesus dies within the 
space of six hours (Mark 15:25, 34) leads some scholars to 
think of this latter method of crucifixion in his case. The 
horrors of such a death — the physical pain, distracted 
mind, shattered nerves, the sun, the heat, pestering insects 
— is not to be described. Yet Origen tells us that some 
crucified victims lived as long as two days. The Gospel 
writers spare us the horrible details. 

4. JESUS MOCKED AT THE CROSS. 

Matthew 27:36-44. Mar\ 15:26-32. Lu\e 23:35-38. 

A mocking of Jesus appears in each of the last three 
scenes, in both trials and at the cross. Here Jews and 
Romans seem to join in the mocking. In Matthew and 
Mark Jesus is mocked with his alleged word about de¬ 
stroying the temple and building it again in three days. 
This word figured in the Jewish trial in the first two 


202 


Good Friday 

Gospels. 3 Luke did not report it in the charges before 
the Sanhedrin, and he omits it here. The taunts are bitter. 
If Jesus is the Christ, the king of Israel (the Jewish and 
Roman case against him), let him come down from the 
cross. He has spoken in paradoxes. Now let him solve 
his death paradox: he has saved others, himself he cannot 
save. In Matthew they sit and watch, gloating over his 
fate (27:36); in Luke (23:35a) it is the people who stand 
and behold, horrified, in sympathy and grief. Mark has 
no parallel notice. Luke associates his only drink offered 
Jesus with this mocking (the vinegar). This is the second 
drink in Matthew and Mark, but they insert it just ahead 
of their notice of Jesus’ death. 

The usual custom was to hang about the victim’s 
neck, or to attach to the cross, a sort of placard stating the 
nature of the offense or guilt. All four Gospels report 
this superscription, and common to all four is the reading, 
“ The king of the Jews.” Mark’s form is briefest; that of 
the Fourth Gospel longest. It contains about all that we 
can say with certainty about the case against Jesus. The 
Fourth Gospel develops a special scene about the reading 
of the inscription. (19:19-22.) He represents Pilate him¬ 
self as the author of it, his final jibe at the Jews in this 
affair. According to the Fourth Gospel, it is written in 
three languages — Hebrew, Latin and Greek. The chief 
priests protest against its wording. Then comes Pilate’s 

3 Cf. Matt. 26:61b; Mark 14:58; Matt. 24:2b; Mark 13:2b; Luke 21:6b; 
John 2:19; Acts 6:14a. 


203 


The Passion Week 

famous dramatic gesture, “ What I have written I have 
written.” 

The scene closes in Matthew and Mark with the two 
robbers joining in the mocking of Jesus — a very strange 
thing for them to do. What their taunts are the first two 
Gospels do not say. 

5. THE MALEFACTOR ON THE CROSS. 

Lu\e 23:39-43. 

In Luke, however, only one of the two mocks Jesus, 
“ Art not thou the Christ ? Save thyself and us.” His 
companion rebukes him, and this leads to the famous 
scene between Jesus and the dying thief, found only in 
Luke but a universal element in the Christian story of the 
death of Jesus. In the malefactor’s rebuke to his com¬ 
panion Luke finds another witness of the innocence of 
Jesus, nor is he the last. The request to be remembered 
in the kingdom presupposes that the malefactor is ac¬ 
quainted with the substance of Jesus’ mission and message. 
Jesus in his reply, “ Today shalt thou be with me in Para¬ 
dise,” promises immediate immortality, not the imminent 
kingdom as we should expect. This is Luke’s second 
word of Jesus on the cross. 

Among the four Gospel writers the Fourth Evangelist 
has the least interest in these fellow-victims. He simply 
mentions them as crucified at the same time and place, 
one on either side (19:18), and the breaking of their legs 
(19:32). He says nothing of their offense or character; 

204 


Good Friday 


they do not mock Jesus. It is strange that the latest tradi¬ 
tion on this point is the simplest. In Matthew (27:38, 44) 
and Mark (15:27, 32b) they are crucified immediately 
after Jesus and they join in the mocking; both are robbers. 
In Luke they command the greatest interest. He mentions 
them on the way to the cross (23 32); they are crucified 
with Jesus rather than immediately after (33b). Their 
special offense Luke does not mention; they are just evil¬ 
doers. One remains unrepentant and mocks Jesus; the 
other repents and would be remembered in the kingdom. 
(23:39-43.) With this scene the two malefactors disap¬ 
pear from the story in the first three Gospels. Their au¬ 
thors lose interest in them, the time of their death, the cir¬ 
cumstances of their removal from the cross and their 
burial. 

6. THE DEATH OF JESUS. 

Matthew 27:45-50. Mar\ 15:33-37. Lu\e 23:44-46. 

In this passage the time moves ahead three and six 
hours. At the sixth hour, noon, the first of the wonders in 
connection with Jesus’ death in Matthew and Mark takes 
place — the miraculous darkness at noonday. In all three 
Gospels it continues for a period of three hours, till three 
o’clock in the afternoon. Luke groups his wonders in con¬ 
nection with Jesus’ death. He brings the strange darkness 
and the rending of the veil of the temple immediately to¬ 
gether and preceding the actual notice of Jesus’ death. In 
the first two Gospels these two miracles are separated: 

205 


The Passion Week 

the darkness comes at noon and continues until three 
o’clock, but the rending of the veil of the temple comes 
only at three o’clock and following the notice of Jesus’ 
death. 

This miraculous darkness is mythological and belongs 
to ancient folk-psychology according to which the heav¬ 
enly bodies participate in human events. They celebrate 
the birth of the great heroes (as Matthew’s star) and they 
mourn their death. The Fourth Evangelist omits this 
miraculous darkness in his death scene. 

The heart of this passage in Matthew and Mark is 
omitted by Luke, the death-cry from Psalm 22:1 — Jesus’ 
only intelligible word on the cross in the first two Gos¬ 
pels : “ My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? ” 
Luke may have omitted it because of its intolerable impli¬ 
cation — Jesus died feeling that he was deserted of the 
Divine. At least, he puts on Jesus’ lips another Psalm 
passage (35:1) —an expression of trust and confidence. 
Jesus’ only word on the cross in Matthew and Mark is a 
cry of distress, but it is one of the most impressive utter¬ 
ances from his lips that has come down to us. Jesus dies 
as he has lived, struggling with his God. He does not 
abandon his faith in God, but asks why God apparently 
has deserted him. The key to this cry is the fact that it is 
a prayer, a prayer of protest. It is not a conscious quota¬ 
tion; the passage simply offers itself to him as the only 
adequate expression of the hurt of his soul. Luke also 
omits the misunderstanding that grows out of the cry. 

206 


Good Friday 


Now comes the second drink in Matthew and Mark, the 
vinegar. Luke reported it earlier in connection with the 
mocking (23:36). 

The passage closes in Matthew 4 and Mark with the 
notice of Jesus’ death; he dies with a last unintelligible cry. 
But Luke converts this wordless cry into a prayer of com¬ 
mitment and Jesus surrenders life with another Psalm 
word on his lips, “ Father, into thy hands I commend my 
spirit ” (31:5), The deep distress of a moment before has 
reverted into confidence and composure of soul — a psy¬ 
chological process that often appears in the history of 
prayer and prayer-literature. 

The Fourth Evangelist has the vinegar offered in re¬ 
sponse to Jesus’ word, “I thirst.” (19:28-29.) But the 
Johannine Jesus is not really thirsty. He speaks this word 
only in order that the Scripture may be fulfilled. (Ps. 
69:21.) Like Luke he omits the cry of distress and the 
misunderstanding of the bystanders reported by Matthew 
and Mark. He also omits the last loud cry of the first two 
Gospels and has Jesus surrender his spirit with the tri¬ 
umphant word, “ It is finished.” (19:30.) 

7. ATTENDANT signs . 

Matthew 27:51-53. Mar\ 15:38. 

In Matthew and Mark the miraculous darkness and 
the rending of the veil of the temple are distinct, the latter 

4 Some manuscripts of Matthew 27:50 add the spear-thrust and the issue of 
water and blood. Cf. John 19:34. 


207 


The Passion Week 

following immediately upon Jesus’ death as though a re¬ 
sult of it. In this rending of the veil of the temple, omitted 
by the Fourth Gospel and associated with the mysterious 
noonday darkness in Luke, we have to do with religious 
symbolism. Now the last barrier between God and man 
is broken down, a theme that is elaborated in Ephesians 
2:14-18; Hebrews 9:1-12; 10:19-25. 

Matthew greatly elaborates on the wondrous signs 
that attended Jesus’ death. He introduces an earthquake, 
a rending of the rocks, the opening of tombs, the resur¬ 
rection of saints and their appearance to many in the city. 
(27:5^-53.) Matthew also introduces an earthquake in 
his Easter story. (28:2.) All of these strange things 
simply say that with the death of Jesus all that Christians 
hope and believe is realized. 

8. THE CENTURION AT THE CROSS. 

Matthew 27:54. Mar\ 15:39. Lu\e 23:47. 

The second new character in the death scene is now 
introduced, the centurion in command of the execution. 
He is not mentioned in the Fourth Gospel; even the first 
three Gospels do not give his name. Only later, in the 
Gospel of Peter, is his name given, Petronius. In Mark 
and Luke only the centurion confesses, but in Matthew 
the soldiers under him also confess. In Matthew and 
Mark we seem to have a full-fledged Christian confession: 
“ Truly this man was the Son of God.” In Luke, however, 
the centurion is just another witness to Jesus’ innocence: 

208 


Good Friday 

“ Certainly this was a righteous man.” In Matthew and 
Luke the wondrous events — the noonday darkness, the 
earthquake (Matthew) — seem to prompt the confession. 
But in Mark it is the manner in which Jesus dies, “ that he 
so gave up the ghost,” that compels the confession. Just 
all that Mark’s “ so ” implies is not clear, but certainly 
Jesus’ prayer of protest and the last loud cry are dramatic 
enough to impress any witness. 

9. THE GRIEF OF THE MULTITUDES. 

Lu\e 23:48. 

With this notice Luke dismisses the sympathetic pub¬ 
lic from the scene. They came with Jesus over the via 
dolorosa, bewailing his fate (23127); they stood beholding 
while the rulers scoffed (35); now they return, smiting 
their breasts. This general public demonstration of grief 
is found only in Luke. Loved of the people from the be¬ 
ginning, he is loved to the end. Such is Luke’s picture. 
Jesus has always enjoyed general public favor; now the 
people mourn his death. In one manuscript (Syr. sin ) this 
public grief breaks into words: “ And they said, Woe to 
us, what has happened to us, woe to us, because of our sin.” 

10. THE GALILEAN WOMEN AS WITNESSES. 
Matthew 27:55-56. Mar\ 15:40-41. Lu\e 23:49. 

Here at the very close of the Gospel story in Matthew 
and Mark we hear of these women for the first time. 
Luke, however, mentioned them in the course of his Gali- 

209 





The Passion Week 

lean account where we should have expected to hear of 
them in the first two Gospels. Luke does not name the 
women in this connection. He simply refers to them as a 
group already named in 8:1-3. These women, like Jesus 
and his disciples, are Passover pilgrims. Luke refers to 
the presence also of Jesus’ acquaintance. 

These women are introduced here as witnesses of 
Jesus’ death. In the first three Gospels none of the inti¬ 
mate group of twelve is present. The twelve dropped out 
of the story at the scene of the arrest, Judas with his be¬ 
trayal and Simon with his denial. Thus our knowledge 
of these closing scenes, especially the death scene, is en¬ 
tirely dependent upon what these women remembered of 
what they heard and saw. They occupy, then, a very 
important place in the transmitted story of Jesus. Our 
indebtedness to these women may extend far beyond 
these closing passages. Their witness may be at the 
base of much that belongs to the general body of the 
story, especially certain passages that are found only in 
Luke. 

The Fourth Gospel (19:25b) tells us that Jesus’ own 
mother (without her name) and the beloved disciple were 
there, not afar off but at the very foot of the cross. The 
first word on the cross in the Fourth Gospel is addressed 
to his mother, “ Woman, behold, thy son,” and to this 
beloved disciple, “ Behold, thy mother.” (19:26-27.) 
The first three Gospels know nothing of this mysteri¬ 
ous beloved disciple at any point in their story, and 


210 


Good Friday 


it is strange that they should have overlooked the pres¬ 
ence of Jesus’ mother at the cross had she really been 
there. 

ii. THE BURIAL OF JESUS . 

Matthew 27157-60. Mar\ 15142-46. Luhe 23150-54. 

The third new character in the death scene now ap¬ 
pears, Joseph of Arimathea who won for himself a perma¬ 
nent place in the story of Jesus because he took down the 
body and laid it in a tomb. Mark and Luke seem to think 
of him as a member of the Sanhedrin, and Luke hastens 
to assure his readers that Joseph had not joined in the 
Jewish verdict against Jesus although he seems to think 
of him as present at the Jewish trial. Matthew adds that 
he is rich. What Joseph’s interest in and relation to Jesus 
were is not clear. Was he a disciple of Jesus? Matthew 
speaks of him as such. Mark and Luke say that he is look¬ 
ing for the kingdom of God, the equivalent apparently of 
discipleship. Some are of the opinion that Joseph’s inter¬ 
est is not in Jesus at all, but in the Sabbath, that it be not 
defiled by bodies of dead victims hanging beyond sunset. 
(Deut. 21:23.) But if Joseph’s interest is purely Jewish, 
why does he not care for the bodies of the thieves — if 
they are dead ? 

According to all three Gospels Joseph goes to Pilate 
and requests the grant of Jesus’ body. The surprise of 
Pilate that death has come so quickly and the calling of 
the centurion for confirmation are reported only by Mark 

211 



The Passion Week 

among the first three Gospels. In Mark Joseph takes 
Jesus’ body down and lays it in a tomb with a stone at the 
door. Luke says it is a new, unused tomb; Matthew adds 
that it belonged to Joseph. Down to this point there is no 
mention of the tomb being sealed or of a guard of Roman 
soldiers set to watch. 

In the first three Gospels the body of Jesus is not pre¬ 
pared for burial. It is not left in its final resting state or 
place. There is not time for such; the Sabbath is too near 
(Mark 15:42). It is the preparation of the body that 
brings the women to the tomb early on the first day of the 
week (Mark and Luke). 

The Fourth Gospel has its own account of the burial. 
It is the Jews who request that all the bodies be taken 
down in order that the approaching Sabbath and festival 
be not defiled. The soldiers take the bodies down. The 
two fellow-victims are not yet dead, so their legs are 
broken. But Jesus is dead already and they do not break 
his legs. (Ex. 12:46; Num. 9:12.) To make sure, one of 
the soldiers pierces Jesus’ side with a spear. There issues 
from the wound water and blood. (Zech. 12:10.) It is 
only at this point that Joseph appears in the Fourth Gos¬ 
pel. He does go to Pilate, but he does not take the body 
of Jesus down from the cross. He is a disciple of Jesus but 
fear of the Jews keeps him from public confession. Joseph 
in the Fourth Gospel is not alone in burying Jesus; he is 
assisted by Nicodemus. (3:1-18; 7:50-51.) Together 
they prepare Jesus’ body for burial. It is in its final resting 


212 


Good Friday 

state and place. The tomb is in a nearby garden, new and 
unused. 

12. THE GALILEAN WOMEN AS WITNESSES. 
Matthew 27:61. Mar\ 15:47. Lu\e 23:55-56. 

For the second time in the death scene the Galilean 
women are introduced, again as witnesses, this time of the 
burial. This prepares the way for the early morning visit 
at the tomb. 

13. THE WATCH AT THE SEPULCHER. 

Matthew 27:62-66. 

Thus far we have heard only of Jesus’ body being laid 
in a tomb and a stone rolled to the door. This is the sim¬ 
plest and earliest tradition. Now we hear how all sorts 
of precautions are taken — the tomb is sealed and a guard 
of soldiers is set to prevent a theft of the body. The time 
given here is the day following Jesus’ death. The hearty 
cooperation between Pilate and the Jewish authorities is 
surprising. The sealed tomb and the Roman guard figure 
nowhere in the resurrection reports except in Matthew 
who makes the guard witness the earthquake on the 
Easter morning, the descent of the angel and the rolling 
away of the stone. (28:1-4.) The passage here has its 
sequel in Matthew 28:11-15 where the guard is bribed to 
silence or falsehood by the chief priests. In this passage 
Matthew is looking ahead and it relates itself to what is to 
come rather than to what precedes. 


213 




The Passion Week 

This passage belongs to early Christian apologetics. It 
is a reply to the charge that the resurrection was a fraud, 
that Jesus’ disciples stole his body from the tomb and then 
announced him as risen from the dead. It belongs then to 
the Easter tradition rather than to the story of Jesus. It is 
a piece of Easter controversy. The type of Easter faith 
herein represented is not of a very high order. It seems 
unable to exist without a full assurance of the tomb being 
empty. 


EPILOGUE 


THE EASTER ADVERSATIVE 




T 

Jl HE story of Jesus has a strange sequel. The tale that 
began in Galilee and that seemed to end with the tragedy 
in Jerusalem has an epilogue. At Jesus’ death there is only 
a temporary halt. The story goes on. It continues indefi¬ 
nitely. The reader has been following Jesus step by step 
through an extremely local geographical and historical 
setting. But now his vision is lifted from time and 
place. The narrow horizon recedes and the new prospect 
appears. The mission of a prophet of God becomes a re¬ 
ligious movement with a world outlook and plan. The 
story of Jesus does not come to a formal ending. The 
resurrection reports by their very genius seek their final 
culmination across centuries in eternity itself. The limits 
of a particular life are transcended. 

While the Easter faith forms the pulse of the New 
Testament documents and the Christian experience from 
which they came, it is at only a few points within the New 
Testament itself that this fervent conviction halts to give 
a meager, all too meager, account of itself and the circum¬ 
stances of its origin. The principal points come in the con¬ 
cluding chapter of each of the first three Gospels, in the 
last two chapters of the Fourth Gospel, in the first eleven 
verses of the book of Acts and in Paul’s list of appearances 

217 



The Passion Week 

of the Risen Lord to individuals and groups in I Corin¬ 
thians 15:5-8. 

These New Testament reports of the resurrection fall 
into two natural groups or strains of tradition. The first 
strain speaks only of appearances to the disciples and 
others. This strain is represented in all of the reports. 
The second strain tells of the visit of the women to the 
tomb, how they found it empty and were informed in a 
vision of angels that Jesus had risen from the dead and 
would manifest himself to his disciples. This second 
strain is found only in the Gospels where it prefaces the 
appearances to the disciples. 

Our earliest literary record of the Easter experiences 
comes from the hand of Paul (I Cor. 15:5-8), who is the 
arch-resurrectionist of the New Testament. Paul’s Easter 
faith is the most constant theme in all that he writes. It 
is never far below the surface and is always discernible. 
Yet how poor and meager are his hints relative to the cir¬ 
cumstances of the origin and development of this one car¬ 
dinal conviction that commanded him. The details of his 
Easter vision are the work of another, the author of Acts 
(9:1-9; 22:6-11; 26:12-18.) Paul himself is content to use 
just simple brief phrases: “ He appeared to me also ” (I 
Cor. 15:8), “ It was the good pleasure of God ... to re¬ 
veal his Son in me ” (Gal 1115-16). Paul’s Easter faith is 
to be described as elemental. He has no disposition to 
elaborate on details, yet he is always firm in his assertion 
that he saw the Risen Lord. It is especially interesting and 
218 





The Easter Adversative 

important to note that the visit of the women to the tomb 
and their discovery that it is empy do not appear either in 
the foundations or in the superstructure of Paul’s Easter 
faith. At no point does he allude to the sepulcher story. 

In the Christian experience of Paul, then, we have the 
Easter faith not only in its earliest but in its finest form. 
It seems to rest quite surely on visionary matter, but there 
is no disposition toward detail and minute delineation, no 
seeking for a setting in time and place. It appears as an 
inner certainty that seeks no objective supports in such 
items as the empty tomb. Paul’s Easter faith takes on the 
form of a dominant life-conviction. Paul is convinced, 
and he remains convinced. For this faith he is ready to 
stake his all. We may call it assertion or assumption, but 
in its Pauline form the Easter faith ranges itself in the 
ranks of the respectable and resourceful phenomena in the 
history and psychology of religion. In its light the Apos¬ 
tle lived and worked, wrought and taught, preached and 
prayed, believed and hoped and died. This is about the 
maximum that religious faith in any of its many forms 
seems to be able to do for men. 

When we turn from the primitive, elemental Easter 
faith of Paul to the resurrection reports of the Gospels, we 
realize at once that we have to do with a wholly different 
type. Here the simple statements do not suffice and we 
find detailed and divergent accounts of the circumstances 
under which the new faith arose, and these circumstances 
are used as proofs of this faith’s essential truth. We have 

219 


The Passion Week 

not merely an Easter faith that rests upon appearances to 
the disciples and others but upon the tradition of the 
empty tomb. Here we meet not just simple assertion and 
assumption, but apologetic; the Easter faith is not only set 
forth but it is defended. This very fact shows that the 
resurrection chapters of the Gospels belong to a later and 
secondary stage of this faith’s development. It is not of 
such a high and fine order, for it seeks external supports 
which are assembled into a defense. Religious faith of 
any sort is always more impressive and convincing when it 
simply asserts and assumes than when it seeks to posit and 
prove. 

No section of the New Testament perhaps is more 
unsatisfactory from the standpoint of actual information 
conveyed than the resurrection chapters that conclude the 
Gospels. There is no unity in this Easter tradition either 
in general or in detail. There is a great difference in the 
materials as well as great difference in the treatment of the 
same materials. The reports of particular items are con¬ 
fused and conflicting. No really consistent account of the 
tomb tradition or of the appearances can be pieced 
together. 

Suppose we turn to the sepulcher story. In Mark 
three women, all named, visit the tomb. In Matthew 
there are only two women. In Luke three are named and 
others, unnamed, are with them. In the Fourth Gospel 
Mary Magdalene is alone. In Mark they go “ very early ”; 
in Matthew, as it “ began to dawn in Luke, “ at early 


220 


The Easter Adversative 

dawn in John, Mary Magdalene goes “while it is yet 
dark.” In Matthew an angel descends from heaven and 
rolls away the stone from the tomb; the women witness 
it. In the other three Gospels they find the stone already 
removed. In all four Gospels the women see a vision of 
angels. In Matthew and Mark there is but one angel; in 
Luke and John there are two. In Matthew and Mark the 
women receive a commission from the angel. They are to 
instruct the disciples to go to Galilee where they shall see 
their Lord. In Luke there is no such instruction to depart 
for Galilee and the angels simply remind the women of 
what Jesus said while he was still in Galilee. In the 
Fourth Gospel there is no commission from the angels but 
from the Risen Lord himself. Mary Magdalene is to an¬ 
nounce to the disciples that Jesus ascends to the Father. 
Mark and Luke have no accounts of appearances of the 
Risen Lord to the women. In Matthew he appears to 
them and repeats the commission of the angel. In John 
Mary Magdalene first mistakes the strange figure for the 
gardener, but on hearing her own name she recognizes her 
Teacher. In Matthew the women grasp the feet of the 
Risen Lord and worship him; in John Mary Magdalene 
is forbidden to touch, for he has not yet ascended to the 
Father. In Mark the women do not carry out their com¬ 
mission; they are filled with fear and remain silent. In 
Matthew their emotions are mingled, “ fear and great joy,” 
and they hasten to tell the disciples. In Luke they report 
to the disciples without a special commission to do so. 


221 


The Passion Week 

Mary Magdalene in the Fourth Gospel tells the disciples 
of her vision and the Lord’s words. In Luke (24:12) Peter 
goes to confirm this rumor of the empty tomb; in the 
Fourth Gospel he is accompanied by the beloved disciple 
and together they find the tomb empty as Mary Magda¬ 
lene has said. In Matthew and Mark there is no effort 
to confirm the report of the empty tomb. From such 
great divergence and conflict in details we can gather only 
the general gist of the sepulcher story: The tomb was 
found empty by the women. The conclusion is: therefore, 
Jesus must have risen from the dead. The visions of the 
disciples and others were not delusions. 

The Gospel accounts of the appearances of the Risen 
Lord center upon Jesus’ chosen group, the eleven or 
twelve. Only Matthew and John report an appearance to 
the women. Luke (24:34) alone among the Gospel 
writers refers to an appearance to Simon. (I Cor. 15:5.) 
But the most elaborate and charming of all the Easter 
stories is found only in Luke — the appearance to the dis¬ 
ciples of Emmaus. (24:13-35.) The other Easter appear¬ 
ances listed by Paul (I Cor. 15:5-8) — to the five hundred, 
all the apostles, James and Paul himself — are not even 
referred to in the Gospels reports. 

The Easter experience of the twelve, or eleven, is the 
only appearance common to all of the New Testament 
resurrection traditions, yet the accounts of it differ and 
conflict both in general features and in details fully as 
much as do the stories of the discovery of the empty 
222 


The Easter Adversative 

tomb. The first great surprise that strikes us is that the 
Gospel of Mark comes to an abrupt end with 16:8 with an 
appearance promised but unfulfilled. This abrupt close 
has aroused speculation and debate. Was Mark hindered 
from completing his work ? Did he complete it and later 
the end was severed and lost? Or, is not 16:1-8 a real 
ending and all that we might reasonably expect? How¬ 
ever one may answer these questions, certainly the present 
ending (16:9-20), as well as another shorter one, is of 
relatively late origin and composed of extracts from the 
resurrection reports of Matthew, Luke, John and Acts. 

A second thing that surprises us is a split in the tradi¬ 
tion relative to the scene of this appearance to the twelve. 
Mark 16:1-8 points to Galilee, and Matthew sets the scene 
on a mountain in Galilee (28:16-17). Luke, both in his 
Gospel and in Acts, thinks of all the appearances, whether 
to the twelve or others, as having their scene in and about 
Jerusalem. In chapter 20 of the Fourth Gospel the scene 
is Jerusalem, but in the appendix chapter (21) the scene 
is Galilee. Historical research favors Galilee, for the 
northern province with its former associations as the 
principal scene of Jesus’ activity and the twelve’s experi¬ 
ence in his company furnished the natural psychic soil for 
the Easter visions of this intimate group. Further, by 
keeping the disciples in Jerusalem, Luke is preparing the 
setting for the events of the early chapters of Acts, par¬ 
ticularly Pentecost. 

When we come to the appearances themselves we find 

223 




The Passion Week 

the same conflicts in the materials and their treatment that 
we found in the tomb tradition. Matthew (28:16-17) 
goes into no detail concerning the manner of the appear¬ 
ance: the twelve see and worship him, yet some doubt. 
Matthew’s interest centers on the words of the Risen Lord 
— the great missionary command, the baptismal formula 
and the promise of his eternal presence with his disciples. 
(28:18-20.) Luke’s appearance to the disciples (2436-43 ) 
is of a very different order. He seems interested in the 
disciples’ reactions, particularly their emotions — fear, 
skepticism, unbelief and, eventually, joy. The chief con¬ 
cern in Luke’s account seems to be to overcome the idea 
that the disciples have seen an apparition or a ghost. The 
Risen Lord is not a spirit, for he has flesh and bones; he 
exhibits his wounded hands and feet; he eats in their pres¬ 
ence. His words point out his resurrection as a fulfilment 
of Scripture. The disciples are not dismissed at once on a 
world mission. They must first tarry in Jerusalem until 
they are clothed with power from on high (Pentecost). 
Luke alone reports the ascension. (24:50-52; Acts 1:9-n; 
Mark 16:19.) h* the Fourth Gospel there are two appear¬ 
ances to the intimate group. The first comes in 20:19-23. 
The Risen Lord appears mysteriously, passing through 
closed doors, yet he exhibits his hands and his side. He 
breathes on them the Holy Spirit, the Johannine Pente¬ 
cost. The second appearance comes eight days later. 
(20:24-29.) We learn for the first time that Thomas was 
not present on the former occasion. This second appear- 
224 


The Easter Adversative 

ance is in its general character simply a repetition of the 
first. Its special purpose is to overcome the unbelief of 
Thomas and to idealize the type of Easter faith that has 
not seen yet has believed. The story of the appearance in 
the appendix chapter (21) is composite. The scene is the 
sea of Galilee with a heterogeneous group of witnesses — 
some are from the circle of the twelve; others are not. 
This appearance does not presuppose those in chapter 20. 
Its interest centers on Simon Peter and the beloved dis¬ 
ciple. The first is reclaimed after his shameful denial and 
there is a mysterious promise to the second about tarrying 
till the Risen Lord returns. 

Among other possible accounts of the Easter experi¬ 
ence of the twelve must be reckoned the story of the 
transfiguration 1 and the walking on the water, 2 for both 
have closer affinities in general character and in detail with 
the Easter experiences than with historical incidents dur¬ 
ing Jesus’ lifetime. Relics of the story of the reclaiming of 
Simon Peter, evidently a part of the Easter experience of 
this disciple, seem to have deposited themselves in Luke’s 
account of the calling of the first fishermen. (5:1-11.) 

These are strange stories — all of them. They are 
strange to our ways of thinking, to our manner of concep¬ 
tion. In view of the tremendous religious movement that 
grew out of the central conviction at their heart, they are 
hardly satisfactory from any angle of inquiry. They give 

1 Matt. 17:1-8; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-363. 

2 Matt. 14:2315-33; Mark 6:47-52. 

225 





The Passion Week 

us no intelligible insight into the forces and factors that 
produced the Easter faith. The setting presented is hardly 
commensurate with the importance of what followed. 
These traditions are fearfully feeble as a foundation for a 
great world religion. The Easter faith existed long be¬ 
fore these particular traditions were circulated, and when 
one realizes the vigor and vitality of the Easter faith in the 
experience of a man like Paul these traditions appear as 
wholly inadequate, whether as accounts of its origin or as 
defenses of its truth. Paul’s simpler assumptions and as¬ 
sertions are more impressive. 

How then shall we approach these Easter traditions, 
for the discovery of any values that they have to offer de¬ 
pends upon an adequate approach to what they relate and 
what they seek to communicate ? 

THE HISTORICAL APPROACH. 

From the strictly historical point of view the resur¬ 
rection reports do not belong to the life of Jesus. The his¬ 
tory of any man is concluded with an account of his death 
and burial. This marks the end; there is no historical con¬ 
tinuation. Whatever movement may follow upon the 
man’s life and work, no matter how closely it may asso¬ 
ciate itself with his spirit and name, the story of the man 
himself as an actor in history is closed. The movement 
that follows marks a new beginning which the historian 
may follow as he followed the man through his life and 
work. 

226 


The Easter Adversative 

For the historian, then, the resurrection reports be¬ 
long to the beginnings and earliest history of Christianity. 
In them we have the rise of a new faith, not necessarily the 
organic continuation of the faith of the Man who died on 
the cross. The historian can gather out of these reports 
only one principal point and fact: namely, the belief in the 
resurrection of Jesus on the part of the earliest Christians. 
This one belief is the most distinctive feature of the new 
faith. What the reports present may not be regarded as 
historical happenings. The original fact was the Easter 
faith, and these reports are its products. In them this 
new faith seeks a setting in time and place, in concrete 
conditions and circumstances. 

The historian distinguishes very sharply between the 
resurrection of Jesus and the early Christian belief in his 
resurrection. The latter is a simple fact of history attested 
in many ways. The former, however, transcends the pale 
of history. Death is the last verifiable fact; beyond death, 
there is no verification in the sense of history. Out of the 
resurrection reports, then, the historian sifts a single fact 
— the belief in Jesus’ resurrection. What was back of this 
belief, and its validity, are not his problems. An actual 
resurrection he can never affirm, for history halts at the 
ideath notice so far as any particular human life is con¬ 
cerned. 


22 7 



The Passion Week 

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH. 

The psychologist can go a step farther than the his¬ 
torian who must stop with the fact of the belief in Jesus’ 
resurrection. The psychologist deals with human experi¬ 
ence, and the belief in Jesus’ resurrection offers an interest¬ 
ing psychological fact. It is the task of the psychologist to 
analyze human beliefs, to locate their origin in experience, 
to trace their development and to delineate their substance, 
particularly those beliefs that have been commanding in 
the lives of individuals and groups and that have produced 
far-reaching results. 

The resurrection reports belong to the field of the psy¬ 
chology of religious experience rather than to the field of 
historical documents. They escape us as statements of 
historical fact beyond that of the early Christian belief in 
Jesus’ resurrection. They are primarily assertions of re¬ 
ligious faith. In them we are not dealing with history but 
with religious experience, primitive Christian experience, 
a powerful faith giving a feeble account of the circum¬ 
stances of its origin and equally feeble defenses of its truth. 

The resurrection reports offer a veritable variety of 
Easter faith and experience. The conflicts and confusions, 
both in general features and in details, come more from 
the divergent types of Easter experience represented than 
from differences and departures in the transmission of the 
Easter story. One type seeks out the empty tomb; another 
is not even interested in such. One type seeks external 
supports; the other rests on inner conviction and ventures 
228 


The Easter Adversative 

out to bold assertion. One type recognizes its Object at 
once; another has the same Object in an at first concealed 
identity — a peculiar mannerism discloses it. One type 
embraces its Object; the other says, “Touch not.” One 
type must assure itself that this is no apparition — the fig¬ 
ure is the same, real flesh and bones; the scars are in their 
places; the Lord eats in its presence. The other type dis¬ 
penses with all of these objective proofs; it reaches its cer¬ 
tainty without them; it listens to the commissions placed 
upon it. There are the mingled and confused emotions: 
fear and joy, timidity and boldness, belief and doubt. 

The psychologist will find, too, that the resurrection 
reports do not belong to the story of a human historical 
figure. With them a new drama begins, a drama that 
seemed to grow out of it, but a tremendous transformation 
has taken place. The theme no longer centers about the 
earthly Jesus who died for his faith but around the 
heavenly Christ who is this Jesus risen from the dead. 
Throughout the resurrection reports Jesus is the object of 
; the new faith; as a religious object his person is its distinc¬ 
tive feature. The attitude of Jesus’ followers has under- 
I gone a complete transformation: formerly they followed 
him; now they worship him in the full sense of reli- 
j gious faith and reverence. Their whole experience rallies 
! around this new center. 

Back of all this the psychologist will find the Easter 
visions, only the general gist of which he is able to gather. 
In their form they belong to that visionary type of expe- 

229 










The Passion Week 

rience so common in the history and psychology of re¬ 
ligion. As their distinctive and essential substance appears 
the conviction that this Jesus who died on the cross God 
has raised from the dead and they have seen him. Back of 
these visions, too, the psychologist will find a turmoil of 
emotions called forth by the tragic events: disappointed 
hopes, unfulfilled faith, distress, sorrow, despair followed 
by remembered love and devotion, tender recollections, 
gradually restored confidence and composure, a rekindled 
faith, a fresh rush of hope that turns into certainty. It can¬ 
not be so! He is not dead! He is with us! 

But with all this the psychologist has not demon¬ 
strated the resurrection of Jesus, and he knows it. He has 
only sought to analyze the belief in the resurrection of 
Jesus as it seems to have appeared and founded itself in 
the experience of the disciples. The psychologist cannot 
go much beyond this without ceasing to be a psychologist 
and becoming an adherent of the Easter faith. 

One other service the psychologist can render. He 
can evaluate the Easter faith in the terms of what it was 
able to accomplish in the experience of those who enter¬ 
tained it. He cannot go back beyond the belief in the 
resurrection of Jesus, but he can say that there must have 
been some tremendously solid substance in and behind 
the Easter faith, for it was the source of seemingly limit¬ 
less enthusiasm and energy. It represented a great body 
of religious conviction and certainty. It was utterly com¬ 
manding for those who were held by it. In the light of it 

230 


The Easter Adversative 

they lived and worked and died. The psychologist may 
say that he finds it inconceivable that men like Paul, that 
a religious movement like Christianity, could stake every¬ 
thing on an empty delusion. What actually happened the 
psychologist cannot say. How valid the Easter faith was 
and is he will not venture to state. But he recognizes in 
the earliest Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection an ele¬ 
mental human conviction that was capable of command¬ 
ing men and movements, of enlisting them in its service, 
even over long periods of time. 

THE RELIGIOUS APPROACH . 

The resurrection reports belong to the realm of 
religious faith. In them only a very limited amount of 
historical fact is discoverable. At their heart we find pow¬ 
erful religious convictions, religious assumptions and as¬ 
sertions. Religious faith is a peculiar thing in human 
experience. It does not proceed like other psychic proc¬ 
esses in every respect. It does not always await the con¬ 
firmation of fact, the demonstration of reason and logic. 
Often it deliberately ignores all of these things. Without 
a single historical or logical support, often in defiance of 
all such considerations, it will launch out on its own ven- 
j ture with the utmost assurance and confidence. In reality, 
religious faith appears at its best when it bids defiance, if 
| necessary, to all that the human situation offers and goes 
its own way, learning and living in the light of its assump- 
; tions and assertions. It is a strange thing in the history of 

231 





The Passion Week 

religion that the most powerful religious personalities 
have been sheer venturers who showed little or no interest 
in strict history, reason or logic. 

The Easter faith, then, is a sheer venture of the re¬ 
ligious spirit. In spite of death as the last verifiable fact, 
the earliest Christians believed in the resurrection of Jesus 
in particular, and men before and since in immortality 
in general. The resurrection of Jesus and human immor¬ 
tality can never be demonstrated satisfactorily. All the 
verifiable facts are against both, and both must remain 
what they have been from the outset — sheer assumptions 
and assertions. These assumptions and assertions may be 
regarded as valid if they offer an actual substance that the 
believing subject can live and work by. They are true if 
they enrich, enhance and elevate, if they produce a high 
quality of personal character and social living. 

Just what happened, just what the Easter experiences 
of the disciples were, we do not know. The exact circum¬ 
stances and the original conditions out of which the Easter 
faith appeared and developed cannot be determined by us. 
The original witnesses, Paul included, seemed better able 
to declare their Easter faith than they were to account for 
it or to describe its origin. This strange faith seems to 
have held its subjects closer to its heart than to its history. 
There is a fine reserve and restraint in the resurrection 
reports. The resurrection itself is not described. We have 
simply an announcement of a conviction. There appears 
only the firm and fervent faith that Jesus lives again. 

232 


The Easter Adversative 

The resurrection reports may not be used to prove the 
resurrection of Jesus in particular or the thesis of immor¬ 
tality in general. They are a witness of faith, nothing 
more. They testify to just one thing — the Easter convic¬ 
tion of the earliest Christians. They are the early Chris¬ 
tian answer to the cross, faith's great adversative\ Fact 
halts at Jesus’ death, but faith ventures on. Fact says that 
he was crucified, dead and buried. Faith replies that he 
is not dead, but liveth. And Jesus does live on in human 
history and experience in a sense and significance that no 
other human being before or after him does, in a meaning 
that even the resurrection reports taken as literal history 
could never supply. Taken as documents of faith, the 
resurrection reports convey an elemental human convic¬ 
tion: men may be snatched from the scene of human his¬ 
tory, but men like Jesus never die. This was not the 
special meaning of the Easter faith for the original experi- 
ents, but this faith and its witnesses do convey at least 
this much to us. 

The religious significance of Jesus in no wise depends 
upon whether he did or did not rise from the dead. The 
formal doctrine of the resurrection can never again be cen¬ 
tral in determining the modern meaning of Jesus. In the 
light of all that we know of him, the reliability of the tradi¬ 
tion of the empty tomb, the witness of the women and the 
appearances to the disciples and others become insignifi¬ 
cant. Any modern meaning, any really religious signifi¬ 
cance, of Jesus must be sought in the living centers of his 

233 


The Passion Week 

historical personality, in the fundamental truths that he 
lived and died by, in the reliability of his exclusively reli¬ 
gious approach to all that our human life and experience 
offer. 

If we approach the whole question of immortality as 
Jesus seems to have approached it (and he has surprisingly 
little to say on this theme in a formal way) there is no 
great difficulty in the way of religious faith believing in 
his resurrection. Jesus spoke of a future that is wholly 
God’s and that is destined for those who attain religiously 
in the present. Jesus attained as none before or after him. 
Meager as our information is about him, we nevertheless 
see in him the richest single deposit of religious values 
known to our human experience. If we are to believe in 
the resurrection of anyone, we must believe first in the 
resurrection of Jesus. Eternal life with the Father whom 
he preached and to whom he prayed is the only fitting 
fate for the historical personality of Jesus. 

The traditional Christian belief in immortality has 
often been too flippant in its assumptions and assertions 
with too little realization of the utter seriousness of the 
thing involved. Jesus spoke of eternal life in the terms 
of the creation of permanent values, of “ laying up treas¬ 
ures ” that perish not. Such an approach is searching, for 
it confronts us with the question: What values do we pos¬ 
sess or represent that we can honestly recommend, even to 
ourselves in our best moments, as worthy of eternal endur¬ 
ance? Such a question strips us of all excess confidence 
234 


The Easter Adversative 

and assurance. It sobers us. It tears the egotism of hu¬ 
man merit from under us and it places the hope of divine 
mercy above us. 

In its finest form there will always be at the heart of 
the Easter faith, in all of its implications, something more 
elemental and vital than the formal doctrines and dogmas 
can give. Immortality for Jesus and others, at its best, will 
always be a humble human hope that dares venture upon 
the Now and the Then in the light, on the scale and scope, 
of all that such a humble human hope has to offer. 

The Gospel story closes with one of the most powerful 
paradoxes of piety. He lived; he died — BUT — This 
is the great Easter adversative. 


235 




347 7 


7 




























Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Ox.de 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnolog.es 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 




























